Ages of the Earth, Life and Humans: No Answers in Genesis or Ellen White–Part IV

by Ervin Taylor, September 5, 2016: The question posed at the beginning of this series was “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?” A related question that was later posed was “What historical factors are involved in creating the strong opposition among many Adventist scientists and others to Young Life Creationism, a point of view which had been added to the text of the Corporate Adventist Fundamental Belief No. 6 in 2015?”
In this discussion, the nature of the conflict will be reiterated and the implications of the existence of that conflict highlighted. Part V will conclude this series of commentaries with one set of answers to the questions posed above as we explore the effects on Adventism in North America as its colleges moved forward to obtain accreditation to permit their graduates to attend medical school at the College of Medical Evangelists, now the School of Medicine of Loma University.
Current Conflict and Its Implications
As the result of an action taken at the 2015 GC session orchestrated by current GC administration, a fully fundamentalist interpretation of the Genesis creation narratives has now been encoded into the “official” Adventist Fundamental Beliefs (FB). FB 6 now says that the Creation of all life forms occurred “recently,” i.e., several thousands of years ago, and was accomplished in six literal, 24-hour days. By this action, what is generally known as “Young Life Creationism” (YLC) has been inserted into the current version of the Adventist Creed.
For the purpose of our discussions, we have focused our attention on the most obvious area of conflict between the revised wording of official Adventist FB 6 and the contemporary scientific understanding of the nature of the time frame of the development of life upon our planet. The title of this commentary reflects this focus: “Ages of the Earth, Life and Humans . . .” The reason for this focus is that an understanding of the geological (rocks), paleontological (fossils) and archaeological (human artifacts) time frames has become even more scientifically secure over the last half century as more and more evidence has accumulated.
One interesting, but possibly confusing, aspect of this topic is that, in most Fundamentalist circles, a belief in standard doctrinaire Creationism (with a capital “C”) typically includes not only adherence to Young Life Creationism but also to Young Earth Creationism (YEC). YEC is the view that the inorganic constituents of Earth are also “young.” Thus, not only is life young but, according to this interpretation of Genesis, the fossil-bearing rocks on Earth must also be “young.”
Below we will mention the efforts of the Adventist General Conference Geoscience Research Institute (GRI). If you carefully scrutinize GRI publications, you will discover that they do not–repeat not–dispute that the earth itself is billions of years old. (Perhaps they don’t want to advertise this to the ordinary church member.) In terms of chronology issues, their efforts are focused on theological apologetics with some highly selected scientific data which they argue supports Young Life Creationism.
One problem, among many, with that approach is that many very old rocks contain fossils. Some of these rocks have been dated in the range of hundreds of millions of years or more, so how do the fossils which are supposed to be “young” get into the rocks? Among other things, the GRI is supported by the Adventist Church to provide answers to such questions. The best explanation that they have been able to come up with so far is insisting that there is scientific evidence for a Recent World-Wide Flood (RWWF).
This RWWF, which is equated with the flood story related in Genesis, is invoked to accomplish the burial of fossils in what the geochronological data indicate are hundreds of millions of years or more old. This means that the validity of all the isotopic dating methods used to establish these ages must be questioned. By their own admission, they are having a difficult time doing that.
The main problem with the RWWF explanation is very simple. It is that there is a highly embarrassing lack of scientific evidence that such an event occurred on a world-wide scale in the recent past. It needs to be quickly added that there have been many local and regional floods recorded in the geological record—some of them of major proportions– but they are widely separated in time. Despite decades of effort and millions of dollars spent by the GRI to come up with convincing evidence of the reality of the mythic RWWF event, the scientific results are, at best, meager. But, in the absence of reasonable evidence, some Adventist religious authorities will fall back on a statement that such an event is, in the end, something you should take on “faith.” These types of statements are often mimicked by writers of articles in Adventist magazines.
One reads in contemporary Adventist church-based or Adventist-dominated journals or books recently published by Adventist presses that “many notable scientists” today question the scientific consensus concerning the age of life on earth or write that just a “little more” new scientific data will demonstrate that life on earth is young. If authors of these articles or books make these kind of statements, they are either grossly ignorant — willingly or unwillingly– of the state of the scientific consensus on this topic or have chosen to communicate a glaring falsehood for what they may feel is required for apologetic purposes.
Perhaps these individuals share the view that to admit a glaring defect in one area of an Adventist theological tradition (and it is a tradition) would call the entire theological structure of Adventism into question. They may believe that if you take out one theological brick in the edifice of Adventism, the entire structure will collapse. Perhaps they feel that they can’t take that risk and, for what they feel is the greater good, do not communicate the truth. Many years ago, this approach was criticized in a journal article and later as the title of a book: Telling Lies for God. Their motivations may be entirely honorable, but what in fact they are doing is deciding to advance a falsehood in the name of maintaining a religious tradition. Traditional Adventism has been critical of the Roman Catholic Church for doing exactly the same thing.
As mentioned earlier, the principal General Conference Adventist organization engaged in apologetics in promoting the YLC position within Adventism is the Geoscience Research Institute (GRI). However, it was recently determined by Adventist conservative activists, with the active support of the current GC administration, that the GRI was not doing enough in the way of effective fundamentalist Adventist apologetics on the subject of the history of life on our planet. Thus a new propaganda initiative of the current GC administration, the Faith & Science Council, was organized. Taken together, these two organizations currently spend on the order of $1.5 million per year of Adventist-contributed church funds to spread the Adventist version of Young Life Creationism to an unsuspecting Adventist laity on a world-wide basis.
Summary of Parts I-III
In the first three parts of this discussion, a brief summary of the history of the Adventist approaches to understanding the nature of the early history of Earth and of life on this planet was presented. This survey was done in the context of development of the dominant theological themes that evolved within Adventism from the middle of the 19th Century until early in the 20th Century.
In Parts I and II, important background elements of this topic were reviewed. It was 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 whom 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 with 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 listener or reader.
During the middle- to late-19th century, while the early developments were occurring, the Sabbatarian Adventist movement was coalescing into yet another American Protestant denomination, the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Although all but one 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 sincerely believed that these visions were supernatural in origin and came directly from God, although some of them, she said, were mediated by angels and, in one case, she reported that Jesus appeared to her. In reporting the substance of some of these visions in writing, she often employed some version of the phrase “I was shown . . .”, presumably by God or angels.
For example, as we have previously noted, in one of her visions, she stated that 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 6,000 years” to designate the time that she believed 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 English 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 in 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, it was 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 evangelistic enterprises. For example, Billy Graham identified himself as an Evangelical but not a Fundamentalist, even though much of his basic theology had many Fundamentalist elements.
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. Other important functions included providing an environment so that Adventist youth could meet and marry other Adventist youth, and providing its clergy with a year or two of post-secondary education. At first, all of these Adventist institutions were not accredited 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 included the word “Missionary.”
Role of Adventist Health Emphasis
It is suggested that, except for one element in its development, it is probable that Seventh-day Adventism to this day would have remained characterized as a totally Fundamentalist faith community where internal dissent would not be permitted. We can see this situation currently operating in both the Jehovah’s Witnesses (Watchtower Society) and Mormon communities. This one element set in motion a set of unanticipated set of consequences that appeared in organized Adventism early in its history. Without the existence of this emphasis, it is likely that Adventism would have neither begun the process of losing its cult-like characteristics nor 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 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 and immediate context which we will be outlining in this discussion. As the research of 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. We should also note that 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 was opened in 1866. Under the leadership of John Harvey Kellogg MD, it was expanded within a few decades into a widely known, major American 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 has not, as yet, been completely unpacked on the basis of the historical record. 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. A suspicious fire in 1902 essentially destroyed the property. At that time, Ellen White proclaimed that God had “permitted” the fire so that Adventists would disperse from Battle Creek and build much smaller institutions. Kellogg ignored her. Ellen White interpreted his actions as providing evidence that he was under the control of Satan. The structure was rebuilt and much enlarged. In the meantime, the headquarters of the Adventist Church was moved from Battle Creek to a suburb of Washington, D.C. It was widely suspected at the time 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 laity, in part to make sure that “good Adventists” would not be tempted to continue to support Battle Creek with their donations. Rather, these donations should be directed to the corporate Adventist Church. To accomplish that goal, his detractors in the Adventist clerical establishment charged him with advocating pantheism and Ellen White contributed “testimonies” supporting that charge. This has been widely viewed as a smokescreen to hide the actual reason for removing him.
In fact, what was at stake was nothing less than who would control the future direction of the Adventist church. In the view of a prolific writer on Adventist history and apologist for apocalyptic Adventism, Dr. George Knight, the Kellogg-White dispute was about “whether the main focus of the [Adventist] movement should be on welfare work for the poor and marginalized [as Kellogg advocated] or whether the focus should be on evangelistic preaching and the seeking of conversions,” the latter being the main thrust of the ministerial class supported by Ellen White. Obviously, inside the corporate Adventist Church, Kellogg lost that battle and White and her clerical supporters won. The influence of the outcome of this dispute has continued down to the present.
Following Kellogg’s excommunication, a large segment of medical professionals at the Battle Creek Sanitarium followed his 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 as quickly as possible establish an institution for the training of “loyal” Adventist physicians. After some preliminary developments there, such an institution was founded in Loma Linda, California, in 1906 as the College of Medical Evangelists (CME).
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 the traditional Adventist understandings of a number of traditional Adventist theological and scientific understandings? That, 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.
The Road to Accreditation of Adventist Colleges
The College of Medical Evangelists (CME), now the School of Medicine of Loma Linda University, was chartered in 1909 by the State of California to train physicians. The early history of CME turns out to have been a very rocky one. It faced its first and greatest existential crisis one year after it began operations.
The crisis for CME was created by the publication in 1910 of what is generally referred to as the Flexner Report. In 1904, because of a concern for the quality of the education of physicians in the United States, the American Medical Association had created the Council on Medical Education. That body quickly adopted two standards for medical education. The first was concerned with the minimum pre-medical education required for admission to a medical school and the second defined a medical education as two years of the teaching of basic medical science and two years of clinical study at a teaching hospital. In 1908, that body asked the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching to do a survey of how U.S. physicians were being trained. The individual chosen to undertake the survey and write a report was Abraham Flexner.
In 1910 the Flexner Report, officially known as the Carnegie Foundation Bulletin Number Four, was issued. There were a number of recommendations whose purpose was to increase in the United States both the quality of the pre-medical scientific education of those admitted to medical schools and the quality of the medical education that medical students received. The most dramatic effect of the Flexner Report was that there were 155 medical schools operating in the United States when the report appeared, but within a decade all but 31 of those schools had closed. The College of Medical Evangelists barely survived, initially receiving the lowest rating possible for a medical school to receive and remain open.
A reader may again ask what all of this has to do with the current disagreements within Seventh-day Adventism over interpretations concerning the age of life on earth based on an interpretation of the Genesis creation narratives.
The answer to this question has to do primarily not with what happened to the College of Medical Evangelists. Rather, it was an unanticipated effect imposed on Adventist colleges: specifically, the new requirements concerning their status as post-secondary educational institutions and specifically having the resources necessary to mount an adequate pre-medical educational program. The critical element was that within a decade of the publication of the Flexner Report, there was a push for medical students to achieve a four-year B.A. degree before being considered ready to attend a medical school. And for that B.A. degree to be recognized for that purpose, the undergraduate institution that conferred it had to be appropriately accredited.
In Part V, the concluding segment of this discussion, the effects on the theological and intellectual ethos of North American Adventism will be examined as, one by one, Adventist colleges in North America resisted the obstructionist efforts of church functionaries and pursued accreditation so that their qualified graduates could be admitted to medical school at an accredited College of Medical Evangelists.
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.
Regarding the age of the earth’s basic geological matter, I like the late Dr. Richard Nies’s explanation of the difference between the age of the geologic matter and the Biblical account of Creation. Dr. Nies believed that when Lucifer was cast out of heaven, God sent him to this unformed mass of matter, and told him to create something out of it [since Lucifer aspired to be like God]. So this mass of undifferentiated matter has existed for millennia; but of course Satan was unable to make anything out of it, so it remained unformed until God and His Son commenced the Creation as set forth in Genesis.
Yes, I remember his creative thinking. There have been many before and after him who proposed ideas about what cannot possibly be known.
1. No one knows when Lucifer was cast out of heaven, as it was unmentioned until John’s visions; and visions are not facts. Lucifer is the name Christians, in the late first century A.D. , conferred on a glorious white-robed, feather-winged splendo in God’s good graces and was not always associated with images of evil.
In classical mythology, Lucifer is the bright Morning Star, Venus in the predawn sky. In translating the Hebrew Bible into the Latin Vulgate, the language in which Christians read the Scripture, this was rendered as “Lucifer,” Isaiah’s metaphorical use of the Morning star.
But it was Milton’s “Paradise Lost” where Lucifer was an important figure and although a fictional poem, it became central to Christian belief since then.
Christians need Satan to blame but in the early Hebrew records, God was in charge of both good and evil.
“In classical mythology, Lucifer is the bright Morning Star, Venus in the predawn sky. In translating the Hebrew Bible into the Latin Vulgate, the language in which Christians read the Scripture, this was rendered as “Lucifer,” Isaiah’s metaphorical use of the Morning star.”
But of course, Elaine, applying “Morning Star” to Lucifer is a mistranslation, it should translate “son of the morning”. “Morning Star” always refers to Jesus Christ. See Rev. 2:28; 22:16. In 2 Pet. 1:19 the KJV uses “day star” to refer to the Light of Christ, but the NKJV renders it “Morning Star”.
The very similar appellation can refer to either Christ or Lucifer. The Greek “Helel” was translated thus in the Vulgate. “Satan” came from Persian Zororastianism.
The Genesis account of creation being accomplished in six literal days is plainly taught in the Bible. Ellen White also held the view that these were literal days. This is what Adventists have accepted held as a belief like many other Christians have throughout history. Dr Taylor, like many others, have departed from this belief.
“Just how God accomplished the work of Creation in six literal days, He has never revealed to mortals. His creative works are as incomprehensible as His existence.” —The Signs of the Times, March 20, 1879.
I guess I will have to be the person to tell Mr. Hammond that Ellen White was simply factually wrong about this topic. That’s not unusual for prophets. They have more important things to do that worry about whether they are getting mere physical facts right.
She had no reason not to accept the views of her conservative religious contemporaries and then had out-of-body experiences that confirm the tradition that she accepted. Nothing unusual about that.
What do you think would have happened to her credibility with her contemporary religious peer-group if she had come out and said “No, creation did not take place in 6 literal days, the use of “days” here are symbolic and creation actually took place over long periods of time.”
No one that she was trying to reach with her more important views at that time would have listened to her.
Another example of an understanding that God reaches individuals and groups where they are.
Genesis is correct in the 7 literal days. Day one is a cardinal number. That means it is a “pattern number”. The 2nd day, 3rd day etc are ordinal numbers. That means they follow the “pattern” and the pattern was an evening and a morning. That this cycle has never changed is verified by the fact that there has never been another cardinal numbered day in the rest of the Bible. So the same 7 day week exists today as the very 1st week in Genesis. Some Bibles misrepresent day one as the “1st day making it an ordinal number. If this were correct there would be no way to tell how long creation week was or any other week.
Erv,
This is, putting no varnish on it, nonsense: “It is suggested that, except for one element in its development, it is probable that Seventh-day Adventism to this day would have remained characterized as a totally Fundamentalist faith community where internal dissent would not be permitted. We can see this situation currently operating in both the Jehovah’s Witnesses (Watchtower Society) and Mormon communities.”
Physical wellness, the one element you refer to was held in common with Christian Science, which you omit. What do you mean, a Fundamentalist faith community? Based on the publication of Dixon and Torrey’s collection of essays published as The Fundamentals which goes out of its way to refute Mormonism, makes the The LDS a fundamentalist faith community?
You reference the publication of the The Fundamentals, which drew its extensive authorship from all major protestant denominations, if this is not the basis of a Fundamentalist Faith community, what is? Adventists have never held to many, many of the positions expressed in the essays. Mormons and JWs, fundamentalists? Wow!
I’m not sure it is coherent in one place to establish there is nothing unique about Adventist ideas about physical wellness and then in another place to argue those ideas made all the difference in our theological tolerance of dissent all because we were intent on training doctors for medical missionary work. cont.
The emphasis on the Seventh-day Sabbath apart from the Mosaic Law is why Adventists insist on a literal interpretation of the Genesis accounts. If the Seventh-day Sabbath of the Jews is literally supposed to be observed by everybody it is of paramount importance to establish it at the creation, not merely at Sinai.
This is the major theological discovery of the Seventh-day Adventists. Nobody saw that before. The Jewish Sabbath was, well, Jewish. The dependence of English dissenters on the bible alone laid a solid foundation for the Adventist emphasis on the literal seventh-day. The heavy-lifting came in using the Genesis accounts to justify it.
And it still does: Seventh-day Adventists cease to be Seventh-day Adventists if they dismiss the creation’s emphasis on the Seventh-day Sabbath. To keep Genesis’ Sabbath accounts literal they have to keep creation accounts literal. Sorry, Erv, medical missionary work, is just the forerunner to the Adventist educational system that leans towards the world as far as it can. The Seventh-day Adventist church’s systematic theology can never lean that far.
William – you said, “To keep Genesis’ Sabbath account literal, [Adventists] have to keep its creation account literal.”
Why? What if Genesis told us that creation took a year, a month, or whatever. And what if it went on to say that God created the weekly cycle for man, and commanded that he keep the Sabbath as a memorial of creation? Would you say, “Hmm…that doesn’t really make sense. I don’t think I need to take His command literally.”? I hope not. The Torah is full of God intervening in ways that don’t make sense until His people experience those interventions in covenant relationship.
By making the Sabbath dependent on a literal 6-day creation, it seems to me that you are ceeating a kind of theological naturalism that forces God into logical literalism before we acknowledge His sovereignty or obey Him.
Why do we emphasize the Exodus version of the Ten Commandments over the Deuteronomic version, which offers a different, but complimentary rationale for Sabbath keeping? It suggests that Sabbath is to be observed as a symbol of deliverance from enslavement to the political and religious naturalism found in Egypt. When we have to ignore one Biblical rationale for Sabbath keeping in order to keep God in a literal 6-day creation box, maybe there’s something wrong. Why do Jews keep the 7th day Sabbath without insisting on creation literalism?
I more strongly believe in the 7th day Sabbath than I did when I was a creation literalist. It’s God’s gift to…
Nathan,
Why? I am speaking to what, not why. It is a history question about the hermeneutic. Adventists have always focused on the literal observance of the Jewish Sabbath. They didn’t approach it as a uniquely Jewish institution.
They postulated (we postulate) it was always an obligation on all of mankind to observe the Seventh-day Sabbath. I suppose it was to avoid the theological charge of “Judaizer.”
You ask, “Why do Jews keep the 7th day Sabbath without insisting on creation literalism?” I answer: Why would they need to? They keep the Sabbath because Jews have to keep it – it is part of the law God gave to Israel. Sabbath starts with Moses for them.
Where is the evidence God gave all mankind the Sabbath commandment? You have to extract the evidence somewhere. Seventh-day Adventists do it, first by insisting the ten commandments are not merely for Israel, but for all men, and second by arguing the Sabbath is an institution, like marriage, originating at the creation.
It is only my opinion, but Adventists would be much more flexible about a less than literal interpretation of the Creation if our literal Sabbath doctrine was not critically supported by the idea the very first Sabbath was just like the second.
Nathan,
I would submit that God arbitrarily decided to put Himself in a literal box, which is the only way the He could be put in one. It is rather humorous to me how some of us perhaps think that we are doing Him a favor of sorts by helping to extricate Him from that box.
William A
Just a point regarding theology. It is said that theology is the effort to explain one’s faith.
If so, theology is not a discovery.
And if so, the Sabbath cannot be a theological discovery.
Faith is sensed first.
Faith is also, Paul notes, ‘measured’ to each of us by God directly.
Makes sense.
Have you experienced “The Tacit Dimension” by Michael Polanyi?
https://smile.amazon.com/Tacit-Dimension-Michael-Polanyi/dp/0226672980/ref=sr_1_1
A brief little book, actually transcriptions of a short lecture series he gave at the University of Chicago I believe.
Here is a physical chemist who taught Nobel Prize winning chemists, including his son, and who became a philosopher who came to believe one actually knows before they can explain what they know.
Once having explained something one can then know what they previously could not know. And also once having explained what one knows, one cannot know it as they once knew it.
Perhaps this explains Paul’s observation that knowledge is unsubstantial … though can be inspiring … And the inexplicable nature of love, hope and faith are what make them enduring.
Bill, I am not in the habit of telling other people they are writing nonsense. You provoke me to do it twice in one day. I hope I am not just in a bad mood.
The Sabbath is not discovered by faith or sense. It is revealed by God. Only by the God of Israel.
The Sabbath may not be a theological discovery, but there is no way it is revealed by faith or nature. I have my doubts it’s revealed in the Genesis account, Sola vote. The Sabbath is a commandment, we are insensible to it apart from its revelation. It is not part of natural law.
There are other ideas that men have believed that could not have been discovered by those long before the command to observe Sabbath was given. That is, unless one believes that the Decalogue was given at the time of Creation without being mentioned in the two accounts in Genesis.
What about the millions who lived before Mt.Sinai? How could they have known that God would later deliver a people from slavery and given them Ten Words to live by?
Will there be millions saved in heaven who never heard of a Sabbath? Is it essential to one’s salvation? It cannot be as it is impossible to know by some “natural law.” It was not given to all the earth’s population by alone to Israel who were chosen as “God’s People” according to their story. Had it been intended for everyone on the face of the earth, it was a well-kept secret of Israel and only given to them. No where in all the OT were the Jews or Christians given the commandment to observe the 7th day.
WA: ‘It is not part of natural law.’
The significance ascribed to the seventh day is not part of natural law, that is true. But the 7-day weekly cycle is. The lunar cycle divides quite (but not perfectly) neatly into 4 periods of seven, generally called the ‘quarters of the moon.’ The Babylonians originally called the new-moon a ‘shapattu,’ from which the Hebrew took ‘shabat.’ They also took most of the Babylonian names for the months of their calendar. This is a site which looks at the question. Its not great, but you will get the idea. Israel got Shabat from Babylon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_calendar
Serge,
There is no calendar utility in the seven-day week and the lunar cycle. You re-calibrate, what every two or three months? The recalibration of lunar years is a complex process with additional months added a prescribed intervals. Solar is better. The approximate divisibility of 29 1/2 days by 7 is an observation, without functional utility.
The rest, the contrived cessation of work on the seventh-day, which has always dominated the rhythm of Jewish life, is unique to Israel. The Sabbath commandment’s origins for Israel are at Sinai.
OK William A, you seem to sense that faith and revelation are pretty much the same process. I’m good with that.
I’m also good with your belief that we would never had figured Sabbath out by ourselves. Indeed, there is serious question as to whether Sabbath as law and Sabbath as grace are the same Sabbath. That difference almost brought the church to fisticuffs … I was going to say, to its knees, but they didn’t appear to often stop to pray about this in 1888 from what I’ve read–and I likely have not read enough.
So, have your read Polanyi’s little book? I think you’d like it. We all know stuff we can’t explain. And we all keep trying to explain it.
No Bill,
I do not think faith and revelation are the same process. Faith believes the revelation. The faith is interior phenomena, revelation is the observation of something that originates outside ourselves.
You are right about the difference between the Sabbath of Grace and the Sabbath of contrived rest. Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the Sabbath of Grace and in him, not in Sabbath observance, we find true rest.
For Adventists, who theologically want to emphasis Sabbath observance for all believers, who focus on the literal Sabbath, the origin of Sabbath at creation becomes of paramount importance.
I will get Polyani’s book. I’ll report back after I look at it.
You can always tell who’s a Fundamentalist; but you can’t tell him much; he already knows all the answers. And the answer’s the same: “God said it; I believe it; that settles it.” End of conversation.
Elaine,
Attitude, rather than the 1915 publication of The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth defines who is a fundamentalist, right?
You have your Muslim Fundamentalists, and your Jewish Fundamentalists, Mormons, JWs, any person who holds on dogmatically to revelation is a Fundamentalist, correct?
Dear Dr. Ervin Taylor,
Anything you write is encouraging. We are blessed to have your experience and convictions. Some of us have to confess our scientific ignorance, but along you come with another powerful history and science lesson.
Thankyou for your great support.
Ken L Lawson
Scripture says Adam was created from “the dust of the ground” (Gen. 2:7) and would return to the dust when he died because of his sin (Gen 3:19). If you believe that the dust from which Adam was created represents an ape-like common ancestor from which he evolved, did he turn back into an ape-like common ancestor when he died?
There is also no answers in evolution as commonly taught.
It is very clear that Christ taught a literal Creation. He stated that Adam and Eve were created in the beginning. They did not evolve. He was also quite clear on the importance of the Sabbath and it’s beginning at Creation. All through the New Testament, which is all about Christ, we see teachings and beliefs in Creation. A literal six day, complete Creation. Can we be Christian and not follow what He taught? He said, “if you love Me keep my commandments”. His commandments point us right to a literal seven day Creation week. Even those who put little importance in the Sabbath understand this. Bottom line is if we are going to call ourselves Christians we must follow His teachings.
The very basis of Christ and His ministry, indeed His earthly existence, points to a literal perfect Creation, The Fall, and the need for a Savior. Christ. Without A Biblical based Creation, Christinity as a concept and doctrine ceases to exist.
If a person wants to believe in science over the teachings of Christ I have no problem with that, just don’t call yourself a follower of Christ.
Apologies for my bluntness.
There are many scientific ideas that are so firmly established by overwhelming evidence that they should be considered as truth, FACT. Newton’s laws of motion, the mechanics of the solar system, cell theory, electromagnetic spectrum, basic principles of electronics and many others can be added to the list. These Ideas are firmly establish on the abundance of evidence. The antiquity of the Earth falls into that category. Many fail to realize that science is as much Gods revelation as is scripture. Nature in all its forms is God’s creation. Science is a study of that creation. When a scientific idea has been confirmed again and again by test after test it becomes a truth. All living organisms are made of cells. Isn’t this a truth, a fact? For 17 centuries Christian scholars asserted the earth was the center of the solar system. This belief was based on their interpretation of scripture but it was shown to be wrong. When scientific idea that has been established by overwhelming evidence is in conflict with a particular interpretation of scripture, then the interpretation needs to be rethought.
So Christ was wrong?
Science is not Gods revelation when it condridicts scripture. Science is constantly changing, evolving ???? but scripture stays the same. God stays the same. Clearly and unimbigously scripture upholds, and is indeed based on a literal perfect Creation and the fall of man from that perfect state. All of scripture points to Christ. Without a literal Creation scripture cannot point us to Christ.
Paul,
I have some questions.
What is the scientific method?
What is an experiment?
Is it possible to conduct observations, experiments and measurements of the past?
Ppriest wrote:
“When scientific idea that has been established by overwhelming evidence is in conflict with a particular interpretation of scripture, then the interpretation needs to be rethought.”
Strong science is founded in repeatable carefully constructed experiments. This implies that humans can exert some degree of control in order to repeatably construct said experiments. Somewhat weaker science is founded upon repeatable observations of phenomena beyond our ability to manipulate. Subject to Heisenberg, we are essentially passive observers of these phenomena.
Unfortunately we cannot manipulate the past. Don’t believe all that sci-fi – Homer Simpson cannot cause the clouds to rain donuts by swatting a mosquito eons ago. So we can only try to make repeatable observations and attempt to explain them. Granted that some explanations may seem to fit the observed phenomena far better than others, we still cannot assert our inferences as Facts.
Science has serious limitations when applied to singular events. It is either extremely difficult and more typically impossible to make repeated observations of singular events. Ergo, science is highly likely to be able to confirm or refute Biblical claims of miracles.
The Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ, the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, etc, are inherently “unscientific”. And the writers of the Bible recognized this Fact.
CORRECTION
I wrote “Ergo, science is highly likely to be able to confirm or refute Biblical claims of miracles.”
I meant “Ergo, science is highly [UN]likely to be able to confirm or refute Biblical claims of miracles.”
To assert that scripture stays the same shows a lack of knowledge of scripture. Compare 1 and 2 kings with 1 and 2 Chronicles. Israel’s story is told differently it has changed. There are around 600 differences in the 4 Gospels. Neither you nor I know what Christ actually said. The Gospels were written 30+ years after Christ by men who never saw or heard Christ. Compare the stories told in the Gospels about say Christ before Pilate. Note the differences. To assert that scripture never changes is ludicrous, the writers never got it all right in the first place. If they didn’t get the stories right, what makes you think they got all of Jesus’s sayings right? If Christ came to Earth as an all knowing God, then he had an advantage over the rest of mankind. He came as a first century Jew immersed in their culture.
The scriptures are human documents and must be read as human documents. Scripture requires interpretation. Different scholars interpret it differently. That’s why we have about 2000 different Christion religions registered in the U.S. each claiming to be correct. What makes you think that your interpretation of a young Earth is correct, especially when it is contradicted by hundreds of thousands of measurements?
PPriest,
There you go again. Tell us something about this measuring of the past. How do you do it?
I can’t debate you on science. Nor can I debate you on the neuances of a word here or there in the Bible contradicting each other. What I can debate you on is that the basis of Christianity points back to a literal creation week, the fall of man and the need of a Savior. Our Savior and Creator believed in a literal Creation. I’m a follower of Christ, a Christian, so by definition I believe what He says to be the truth.
Let me ask you. Do you believe Christ died and was brought back from the dead and ascended to heaven?
There is no such thing as an invariant method of scientific investigation. The methods of science cannot be reduced to a neat series of steps. There are no rules of discovery and invention in science, nor must one construe that the practice of scientific method consists in the use in all inquiries of some special set of techniques. The scientific method as a series of steps is at best only a generalization, an approximation of how science proceeds. The one methodical rule underlying all science is the critical examination of all claims about nature. It is a persistent critique of arguments. All scientific conjectures must be subjected to critical examination and empirical testing. A hard but necessary rule of science is that if a claim isn’t supported with experimental evidence it is thrown out. The GRI has been trying to find supporting evidence for a young Earth for several decades without success. The young Earth hypothesis is without supporting evidence it should be thrown out.
Paul,
Lack of experimental evidence about the age of the earth – if we throw out the YEC, shall we throw out the OEC as well?
I ask again and again about those experiments and observations of the past. How do you do it?
More like making assumptions about the past, I think. Science-based assumption making? That is an oxymoron.
William, Christ once said “If you believed Moses, you would believe me…” Jn 5:46. The implication is that if you don’t believe Moses you won’t believe Christ. In the same way if you believed that science produces reliable knowledge you would believe in an old Earth. But since you have demonstrated in the past that you are a science denier there is nothing I can say or any scientist can say that will convince you of an old Earth. You ask, “How do you measure the past.” You know the answer, and I know that you will give arguments attempting to show how that science is wrong. However, it is not good enough deny the science behind an old Earth. You must present physical evidence supporting a young Earth and you can’t.
Paul,
Cut the pejorative ‘science denier’ – its use reflects badly on you. You assume I deny an old earth chronology. I do not. I have never written anything saying I do.
I do not know how science can make observations in the future or past. Assumptions, statistics and models are used instead of observations and measurements to speak about what we know about the past or expect to observe in the future. Observations and measurements can be wrong, we can detect past error when we repeat the observation and re-measure. We can also reconfirm past observations and measurements as accurate. We can redo past experiments in the present. We cannot conduct experiments in the past.
To scientifically know something about the past we must trust records and data from past observations or we must use assumptions, statistics, models and conjecture. I am particularly wary of the use of assumptions and statistics in the scientific method.
For example: The New Horizons observations of Pluto last July revealed past observational errors of breathtaking proportion. Assumptions and confirmation bias made it impossible to see Pluto’s hazy nitrogen atmosphere reflecting sunlight. Pluto was assumed to have essentially no atmosphere. How could it have an appreciable atmosphere with atmospheric pressure 1/100,000th that of earth? Now we observe it has an atmosphere more similar to Mars. cont.
cont.
The Pluto example shows how assumptions can distort even raw observational data. We can not see what cannot be there – until we have no choice but to see it.
The OEC depends on too many assumptions to be reliable. The OEC is a conjecture. Yes, the earth appears to be very old. The scientific method has no mechanism to speak coherently about an OEC.
You are intent on attacking the YEC. That is easy. You need to defend the OEC. Your refusal to engage the argument and defend the OEC is telling. You are the proponent in the debate and all you do is call me names.
How do you take measurements in the past – of the past? I DON’T know. Do you?
Some Key Points Answered:
“contemporary scientific understanding”
“Some of these rocks have been dated in the range of hundreds of millions of years or more, so how do the fossils which are supposed to be “young” get into the rocks?”
“… there is a highly embarrassing lack of scientific evidence that such an event occurred on a world-wide scale in the recent past.”
Science is the study of… It is not the final word. Has there EVER been a point in time when science said anything less than my view is truth?
The word CONTEMPORARY has to be used to modify SCIENCE because so called science changes with time.
The newly created tree stood tall at the end of creation week. What would science say about it? Would they count the rings, do a scientific study of it and then what would their report say about the age of the tree made just last week? The same would be true of rocks.
When science observes God’s creation using contemporary science what conclusions can be expected?
Is God’s Word dependent on science to prove it true, or is it true regardless of CONTEMPORARY SCIENCE? Based on the science of Noah’s time a world wide flood was impossible.
I know what Jesus and His Word has done for me. I trust Him when He says He created the world in seven evenings and mornings. (He wrote it in stone). If others want to elevate science above Scripture, they can take it up with the Creator Who said to remember the 7th day… it is His sign that HE makes us holy…
Well said.
Recently i posted the following:
“Scripture says Adam was created from “the dust of the ground” (Gen. 2:7) and would return to the dust when he died because of his sin (Gen 3:19). If you believe that the dust from which Adam was created represents an ape-like common ancestor from which he evolved, did he turn back into an ape-like common ancestor when he died?”
Response? NO ANSWER. seems to me the theistic evolutionists among us (Erv et al) are suffering from Aphasia. Shall I call a doctor?
You posit two impossibilities:
If you believe that the dust from which Adam was created represents an ape-like common ancestor from which he evolved, did he turn back into an ape-like common ancestor when he died?”
Either Adam was created from dust, or our common ancestor is much like Lucy, found in east Africa a few years ago. It can’t be both. Defend either, but no one is prepared to defend both.
I assumed that Mr. Cieslar was making some type of statement in the form of a rhetorical question, and was not really expecting a serious response. But I guess not.
Whoever wrote/edited the final version of the Genesis narratives we have did indeed say that Adam was created from, as he says , “the dust of the ground.”
I’ve have been told by those who have studied Hebrew (one can also just look it up if one wishes) that the root of Adam in Hebrew means “ruddy or red.” It is generally understood that in Genesis 1, it is used in the sense of human or “humanity” in general. So the text says, we humans come from the reddish-colored dust of the ground. We will return to that same ground, that is just a simple fact.
Mr. Cieslar says that this is the result of “sin.” What that exactly means we will leave for another time.
Mr. Cieslar’s question was: [D]id he turn back into an ape-like common ancestor when he died?”
That’s a nonsensical question taken literally. But ignoring that for a moment. We are born as a biological descendent of an ape-like biological form and will die as such. Beyond that response, I’m not sure what Mr. Cieslar has in mind. Perhaps he will be so kind as to explain his question in a little more detail.
AT sells an excellent book talking about this and other issues involved in understanding the Genesis Creation story from a progressive Adventist Christian perspective.
Oh Elaine, Elaine, you obviously didn’t understand my question. let me make it plain and simple for you
Genesis 1,2,3 metaphor or literal?
It’s all metaphor. How can it be otherwise when no one observed and it was written centuries later.
“..no one observed”? Because humans were not yet made does that mean all the heavenly hosts did not “observe”as God created? Or did God create the angels after He created everything else?
Elaine wrote:
“It’s all metaphor. How can it be otherwise when no one observed and it was written centuries later.”
What about Gen 3:19 ” in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. ”
metaphor ar literal?
Many times metaphor can also be literal; i.e. a manual worker in the hot sun is working by the sweat of his brow while the accountant in the a/c/ office is metaphorically doing the same. One does not negate the other possibility. We sometimes say, “I sweated making my income tax or working hard to pay all the bills. Have you not experienced both?
There is virtually nothing in the Bible that can be proved scientifically. Science cannot support the parting of the Red Sea, nor Christ raising various people from the dead. It can’t support the sun standing still, nor Christ turning water into wine. It can’t support God being born to a virgin. It can’t support Christ being raised from the dead and accenting to heaven. It can’t support heaven. If we are going to put our faith in science to support the Bible we are sunk folks. There is scant evidence to support Creation. It takes faith to believe in all those things, not scientific knowledge.
There certainly is a lot of stuff we don’t know about the stuff we are made of, where it all came from and how long its been around, but it does seem apparent that if we don’t figure out where our self-destructive nature came from, we are all going to hell and the earth is going to return to it’s “original” formless and void state. The only way we can understand our self-destructive situation and how to reverse it seems to be through the “myth” that some cosmic being visited our planet a couple thousand years ago and tried to explain it all to us. Unfortunately, before he could get to the details of our origin, we killed him. Still, in the short time this being was on earth, they were able to demonstrate to us how to keep from killing one another and how to preserve the planet upon which we are dependent. What’s crazy, rather than capitalizing on this being’s instructions on how to survive and thrive on our planet, we would rather spend our time arguing and fighting over the stuff this being didn’t get a chance to share with us. So, what is important, becoming a fossil buried in the aging muck of our planet for some other being to ponder 1 billion years from now or learning how to live forever.
May I say that Mr. Sherwin has made what seems to me a very valid point. I would put it in slightly different language, but the essence of the comment is well-put: “If we are going to put our faith in science to support the Bible we are sunk folks.” Modern science was neither originally designed nor is currently equipped to deal with what are religious-based convictions which is what the list of confessional statements that Mr. Sherwin has listed are. To unpack “It takes faith to believe in all [of] those things” would take a very lengthy discussion to deal with all the issues that would be raised which many theologians have done.
Erv, did Jesus teach a literal six day Creation? From what I have read in the Bible He did, and He should know since He was the Creator.
“Did Jesus teach a literal six day Creation?” No, he did not. If one can find such a text, please share it with us.
He clearly did Erv. He believed in the Sabbath Day. The Sabbath makes no sense without a literal six day Creation. He said for us to keep the commandments, which are clear that the earth was Created in six literal days. And He said that man was created at the beginning of Creation. Clearly not millions of years after it started. And He believed in a factual Old Testament. No where does He imply it was not factual. No where in the New or Old Testements do We find anything to indicate that a literal Creation week did not happen.
Really, Richard? If the Sabbath doesn’t make sense to you without a literal 6 day creation, then God could not have taken one day a week in time and made it a holy symbol of both creation and freedom from the natural order that He created? Who are you to chain God to your literalism? God commanded lots of things especially in Genesis – that didn’t make a lot of sense. A 6 day creation, with days and light before creation of the sun and moon makes no sense at all. Yet your okay with that. You create a hermetically sealed container of absurdities that can only be kept alive by excluding common sense, reason, experience and science. And then you insist that everything within that container must be taken literally in order for its logic to make sense. You’ve got my head spinning. I have to believe something that makes no sense at all in order for what I believe to make sense. Right!
Exodus makes Sabbath a memorial of creation. Deuteronomy makes it a memorial of liberation. I know it’s a novel idea. But why can’t a symbol-loving God, who arbitrarily makes piles of rocks sacred, and desert sand holy, choose to give us a non-natural symbol like the Sabbath and infuse it with meaning that binds us to His creation, while enabling us to declare that we are free from control by that created order, and free from insisting that God has to make human sense?
The flaw, it seems to me, in your argument Nathan is that neither the narrative nor the reality of a six-day literal creation need to make sense to us in order to believe it; whereas the Sabbath does need the reality of a literal six-day creation in order to exist—since God’s claim to have created the earth in six days is one of His cited reasons for its observance and remembrance.
In other words, it’s our seemingly irrational belief of God’s apparently nonsensical claim that makes the Sabbath a reality; and that makes the Sabbath have, or gives it, any rational significance.
So actually, Richard makes perfect sense.
As I said before, it’s God who arbitrarily decided to put Himself in a literal box; which of course was the only way for that to occur. Yet it is us who feel that we have to help God extricate Himself from a box in which He chose for Himself. That’s hubris.
Your argument is reasonable, Stephen, though I don’t find it compelling or exclusive. Nor do I find that it makes a difference in our respective views of Sabbath sacredness. Another reason God gives for the Sabbath is that He rested. Do you believe that God was tired after creating, or that He needed a “no work” day?
I dont have answers to lots of questions. But I believe that eternal truth only translates with approximation into temporal truth. The fact that God speaks symbolically doesn’t make what He says any less important – at least not in my life. It simply means I may need to dig a bit deeper, and depend more on His Spirit, to understand and follow what He is saying.
If creation literalism is necessary for you to see the 7th day as sacred time, then please, continue in creation literalism. But in our witness to a 21st Century world, I think we would make the Sabbath more compelling if we avoided the “White Queen” approach.
I am delighted to read what an Adventist scientist who is not employed by the denomination tells the rest of us about playing with science in order to support fundamentalist doctrines. IT convinces no one who is willing to look at the evidence. I am also delighted to read that to defend “faith” with scientific pseudo-data or its lack is also a fool’s errand.
What is most lamentable to me is that those who wish to defend a “biblical” view of the origins of the created world reduce the Bible to three chapters. I invite anyone wishing to know what the Bible has to say about the cosmos in which we live to actually read the whole Bible with seriousness. If I may be excused for a commercial, I invite those to read my book “Creation in Scripture.” My problem with fundamentalist creationists is not scientific, a subject about which I know very little. My problem with them is biblical.
“What is most lamentable to me is that those who wish to defend a “biblical” view of the origins of the created world reduce the Bible to three chapters.”
Throughout the whole Bible we see, not only the creation of the physical world by the Word of God, but also the spiritual “worlds,“, that is, every individual soul has a “foundation” which was “framed by the Word of God”:
“3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.” Heb. 11:3.
The physical world around us can only be “seen” or, we relate to it because of that which is within our souls. God speaks and “forms” our inward parts (Ps.139:13-16).
Nathan, show me anywhere in the Bible where Gods people did not believe in a literal and somewhat recent creation week? Show me where Christ, the One who Created the Earth, did not think it true? Where is the Biblical evidence to support anything else? When you start believing that a Biblical Creation is a myth then everything else in the Bible also becomes a myth because very little of it can be backed by modern science.
Stephen Foster’s last paragraph is dead on. God Himself made this literal box and some of us think we should be taking Him out of the box He created. Only God can do that. And He has chosen not to.
I happen to accept, for all practical purposes, the creation accounts of Genesis 1 and 2, as well as the story of the fall. I accept them as God’s word to me about who He is and who humanity is. God has not chosen to get into the granular details so as to make what physically occurred understandable to finite human minds.
I am not a scientist. So I don’t need to operate from any other perspective of knowledge and data than what is offered in scripture. But if I was in many branches of science, I could not possibly do plausible science believing that life on earth goes back only a few thousand years.
There is little doubt in my mind that the writers of the Bible had inaccurate understandings about the physical universe. And in His incarnate form, I would imagine Jesus shared that understanding, not as Truth, but as a basis for navigating the world and accepting its cultural understandings as he found them.
I don’t really care whether my fellow Adventists believe in the creation story in the same way I do, or whether they use the same arguments I do to support 7th day holiness. What I care about, and what I count as authentic and significant, are those beliefs and values that make a difference in the way they live their lives. If it doesn’t make a difference in the way you live your life, what you believe differently than me about the Sabbath and creation is only a matter of academic interest to me.
I think it would be very few branches of science where belief in evolution and/or creation taking place million of years ago where it would be a problem. I suppose evolutionary science might be one of them????
“There would be very few branches of science where belief in [creation literalism would be a problem].” I quite agree, Richard. I always find scientific consensus risible, because it is so often arrived at by tallying the opinions of scientists who have no special qualification on the subject matter. And then the studies use the most unscientific methods imaginable to guarantee a desired consensus that is so unnuanced as to be worthless.
That sounds nice and all Nathan, but using your words and logic, Richard’s point is that one involved “in [any of a number of] branches of science…could not possibly do plausible science believing that” Jesus was born of a virgin, or raised dead people, or any of any number of things that are chronicled (or, if you prefer, reported) in the Bible.
Sometimes I think that it not necessarily only God that ‘we’ are trying to extricate from the literal box; but that it is also ‘believers,” and that’s not possible.
Well again, Stephen – and we’ve been round and round on this – singularities generally can’t be proven or disproven scientifically. There are many reasons for me to believe that the creation story is not intended to be taken as literal, and should not be so interpreted. There are many reasons for me to believe that Jesus life, death and resurrection were real historical events. In the end, we stand before God as individuals, accountable only for how we have lived. Until you know my life, and until I know yours, I think we need to be careful about trying to force one another into boxes of abstract theological propositions that give rise to more hubris than transformational living.
It’s all quite interesting and stimulating. But I really am more and more convinced, the older I get, that God will have me look in the mirror of my own values and the people living and worshipping in my sphere of influence. And He won’t ask me a thing about what abstractions I professed to believe. He’ll ask me what I did to and for “the least of these,” and He’ll ask me whether, within my faith community of disciples, I exhibited the kind of love that enabled the world to recognize that I was one of His disciples. If the answer to those questions is yes, tell me, Stephen, how much will it matter whether I believed that the stories of Genesis 1 and 2 are literal?
Nathan,
I would think that it is entirely possible for someone to not believe that the accounts of Genesis 1 and 2 are literal, and yet believe that it is important to act and behave in beneficent ways to other people Nathan. That happens all the time.
But in the end, we are not saved by what we do for others, but rather by the grace of the Person in whom we believe and have faith.
So, I suppose it is also entirely possible to not believe that the accounts of Genesis 1 and 2 are literal and to yet have faith that by His grace we are saved from sin, its power, and its penalty. It just seems to take a few unnecessary maneuvers of mental gymnastics in order to do so; which therefore makes it seem unnecessarily difficult.
For instance, you say that “There are many reasons for me to believe that the creation story is not intended to be taken as literal, and should not be so interpreted.” But let’s face it Nathan, practically all of those “many reasons” are scientific, from a scientific consensus of evaluation of the available evidence; and practically none of those reasons are theologically based.
Mr Schilt and MR Sherwin, I Love you both and think you are both right. Did GOD really need to rest, or was that for our sake? Was the reiterated command to remember the Sabbath not because some forgot to? Failing to remember the Gift given to us (Exodus 16:29), in physical and Spiritual rest, as a time to reflect on HIM and for us.
Should we let the shadow of things to come, allow us to judge, in meat, or drink, or in holyday, moons or the Sabbath (Colossians 2:16)? Can we really change things because of the way we define or approach it? Is it not written in our hearts, as each should do? Because HE knows us best, we enjoy the Gift, not because it is commanded. But HE actually did Love us enough to create and command it of us, to us and for us.
Erv, Allegory and myth were the “truth” the ancients lived by. It isn’t the same “truth” current creationists live by.
It never ceases to puzzle me why the creationists assume the ancient stories were created with our mindset. It is blind illusion that ignorant (not dumb) people with no clue of the nature of the universe accurately developed narratives as literal recounts of an actual process. They had no data by which to create or measure the accuracy of any concept. They had to be to be satisfied with a panoply of imagined gods and allegories as their explanation of the unexplainable.
The ancients lived without facts as demonstrated by their stories. There are thousands, probably tens of thousands, of antique mythical tales equivalent to the Genesis stories. All are equally eligible to be transfigured into modern facts. Yet, only the Genesis recount is chosen by preconceived template smashers as the premium fable worthy of meeting the fantasy of current scientific “truth.”
Creationists would be so much better off adopting the ancients “truth” outlook. First, they wouldn’t look stupid in our age (pejorative opinion, I confess). And they would be much closer to contributing a legitimate notion to the discussion of human genesis. Allegory has an unlimited, cosmic reach to the estimation there is more than we know behind all of this. Exactitude is dismissed as irrelevant, an impediment.
My pipe dream! Please, a smart creationist to unpuzzle me.
You are working under the assumption that those ancient Biblical stories we made up by man. I work under the assumption those ancient stories we inspired by God, and I have no reason to believe them not to be factual, just as I believe it’s factual that there was a world wide flood, the Red Sea parted for the Israelites and God used His finger to write the 10 Commandments in stone. One reason I believe those stories is that Christ believed them, Christ who was the Creater and who died for me and is now in heaven.
I’m not yet “unpuzzled” Richard. One can “believe” whatever he wants. That is opinion on parade. And that is common religious discourse. Facts don’t matter. As for me, I believe the story of the Three Bears.
If God “said it” when, how and where? How do you know it wasn’t Tricky Lucifer being deceptive? How do you know he didn’t say any of the other stories emanating from that time? Why didn’t he speak this to the Hindus, Moslems, Rosicrucian’s and all other religions to remove all doubt? Why is he so obsessively secretive that one has to guess when it is that he speaks? These are rhetorical questions on my part. You don’t need to answer. My “pipe dream” lives on.
To Mr. Sherwin: Let us assume for purposes of discussion that the historical Jesus believed that all of the biblical stories were literal accounts of actual events that occurred in the past. Orthodox Adventist Christians believe that Jesus was 100% human and 100% divine. If you don’t believe that you are not an Orthodox Adventist Christian. If one accepts that, what is the problem that the 100% human did indeed believe that all of the biblical stories were literal, even if that, from a factual point of view, they were not? He had no knowledge that any other human of his place and time possessed. If he had some “special” knowledge, then that would mean that he would not be an appropriate human role model. Right?
Ervin, Yes, Jesus had specific knowledge as no others of His Earth time had. Just as Aristotle, Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Einstein, and other giant brains, appearing through the ages had, but Jesus was Devine, untainted by a sinful nature.
Erv,
Shall we call your Jesus, ‘the ignorant Jesus’ – Christus Ignoramus? How will we square that idea with the oh so many texts that teach us otherwise.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.
Jesus Christ knows, He us not ignorant. The bible tells me so.
God being God, it can’t possibly be a surprise to God that there is such a range of ‘understanding’ as to what appears in scripture. God being God, scripture could have been utterly unambiguous.
So, the obvious question is, why are we working so hard against God’s obvious will for there to be such a wide and inherently conflicting understanding, by trying to eliminate the ambiguity?
Or, what is the positive takeaway about God that is implicit in the intentional reality of such inherent conflict?
God is totally ambiguous. Silent even. Absent even. Your version doesn’t act like God. You could do a better job than him of revealing eternally important stuff. While he dispenses the inane secret wisdom that you discern, and of which there are millions of versions and opinions, he has stood by while about ninety-five billion earthly people have died. A great many have suffered horrible deaths, unimaginable psychological and physical suffering. All have prayed in their own way for deliverance.
You talk about God’s “obvious will.” What in the world is that? Bill, I don’t pretend to know what God is like, I just know he cannot be what you proclaim. Spending eternity with him with is unthinkable. Would you want an eternity to sit for grape juice totties with “god” who ignored Hitler, Stalin and the other scum of the earth? Why spend a minute with Superguy who in his role as “god” allowed them free reign to practice their evil?
Superguy, your version, is a figment of the imagination, god created in your image, human form. He’s a wiener compared to what god could or might be. He’s way too small and way to human. And way gone because he has never been here.
You have settled for a version of god that is so defective you should be embarrassed defending him with excuses for behaviors good people would never do. And you deflect criticism of him by blaming mankind for his defects.
Check out Christ, not as god, but as a reflection of what God might be.
Bugs,
I think I understand what you’re saying; and for someone who doesn’t believe much of the Bible to be factual or historical, or someone who believes much of the Bible to be mythological and fictional, you make perfect sense as far as I’m concerned (which may mean that I am not sufficiently concerned).
It is the believers in the Creator God of the Bible, and those who believe that Jesus was the incarnate Creator of everything; who performed miracles, and who arose from the dead, and will return, etc. that, to my way of thinking, have something to reconcile if they also believe that it is not possible for God to have created this world in six days.
You know, Bugs, because it is deep in your experience, the story of God offering that to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil will kill you.
Now, maybe there really was that conversation, maybe it was all imaginary. The reality though is that you readily admit that try as you can you have no explanation for good and evil. Neither do I. I guess that makes us friends.
It also affirms that old writer’s creation tale is fraught with wisdom that has endured until the two of us sampled the figurative fruit. And die we will.
There is an interesting claim, The truth if in the story not in the facts.
So what’s your story, Bugs?
I sense there is great truth in your story.
One of the things I learned when I started the intellectual journey that got me where I am is that all my questions can never be answered. I have learned to live with answer deficits. And so it is about the presence of evil. There are no good explanations.
I always value being called a friend and I reciprocate in kind!
As to the tale being “fraught with wisdom,” that is why allegory is so much more valuable than manufactured or imagined facts. It is a way of affirming that human answers aren’t adequate for the task.
There are no “facts” in ancient stories. Not in our modern sense of history. The filtering of time and the original verbal collection and retelling of stories relegates most to the shelf of myth or legend. That doesn’t necessarily negate their value as lessons of ethic, morality, and wisdom. It usually elevates it. “Myth” doesn’t mean false, necessarily.
My story? It is still being written. The ending is that I will die. In the interim I intend to keep living life fully according to my template. That probably doesn’t answer your query!
And I am oblivious as to how the “the story of God offering that to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil will kill you.” Life will kill me, isn’t that enough? Anyway, what in the world is a “tree of knowledge of good and evil?” Are those the ugly eucalyptus trees I saw in CA during my recent 3 mo. campout escape from AZ Furnace?
Larry your “And so it is about the presence of evil. There are no good explanations.” The explanation for evil is mankind has always been evil. Now love is a different subject, of which you are familiar. Love is of the Almighty God, Jesus the Christ. It is the Golden Rule. Without it tribalism and cannibalism would still
be the norm.
I contend that humans have always been as they are now. Evil is a term we apply to certain behaviors. It is applied differently by diverse cultures and in other time periods. So I agree with you, Earl, just state it a bit differently.
But that doesn’t get to the base question, why? Yes, I know there are a million religious and other proposals, but speculation is their genre.
Love is a natural numinous, ameliorating force, in my estimation. Christ borrowed it from the Pentateuch and identified as introduction to God. I see it as a religious attachment to a phenomenon always and forever a part of human experience. Identifying it with God is fine with me since there are no other legitimate candidates for a glimpse of what God might be. And when it wells-up for me as an instantly blossoming flower many times daily it is experience, not speculation.
Yes, my love statement contains an unmistakable question. Why doesn’t it overwhelm evil if it is attached to God? Why is gravity so weak (10 to the 39th power weaker than the electrostatic force)? While I will probably never know the answer to either, I walk unafraid trusting my gravity attachment to the earth and in a spirit of delighted expectation by being internally squeezed often with the bursting flower buds of love!
Larry. i understand your rational of mankind’s predicament of lack of physical proof of a loving God, and most every one is a Missourian, “Show Me”. Yet it is telling, that the vast majority of humanity seeks an answer to, why life?? What happens when i die?? Why is life so difficult and painful?? Why do we suffer mentally and physically. Why is evil?? Why is love?? Whether it is a Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, or any other religion, people have always sought answers to these questions. By Myth and historical writings, man today
have at their acceptance thousands of isms to entertain. Yet the majority choose one of perhaps ten and their derivatives as their choice. Billions and billions have faced this dilemma over the eons. Yet mankind has made their own God. Yet life is so beautiful, even with the sufferings. The panoramas of nature, the beauty of the human form, the phenomena of the human computer with its intellectual brilliance, the DNA with its seemingly infinite coding, speaks to me of a Master Designer. So i have from early life, chosen the Christ of the “Holy Bible”, and His LOVE thy neighbor, as my God. i have accepted Jesus as my God. Now no one, from Earth, but Jesus, has seen beyond the grave, but the promises we treasure in our hearts, ease us through this life with love and joy, trusting all, fully and completely to our God. Now your love and your joy
you savor, as the here and now. Whereas this intelligence should not exist for just a season.
In reading many of Bugs postings, it is a shame that he left the Adventist ministry because progressive Adventism needs him and his insights now more than ever. He would be warmly welcomed in the Adventist Church to which I belong on profession of faith in the parts of Adventist Christianity which he could affirm even if it is affirming only the belonging part of a commitment and not the believing and behaving parts. But it is very difficult to speak openly and express your views as a progressive Adventist Christian outside of the areas where our major educational and medical institutions are located. Those of us who live in such localities must always remember that we live in an intellectually and culturally privileged Adventist environment available only in a limited number of areas.
Quite a statement, Erv. Progressive Adventism needs more non-believers and cynics who take great delight in ridiculing and expressing contempt for what is sacred to others. Not only that…but wouldn’t it be great if they were in the ministry! Is that really what you want to identify with? Get folks to cynically join the church by profession of faith so they can destroy it?
Nathan,
I’m telling you bro,’ progressive Adventism is a dead end street; a cul-de-sac at the top of which dwells what you read from brothers Taylor and Boshell. What they believe is the logical and possibly inevitable extension of progressivism.
Nathan,
Progress is progressive. Professor Taylor doesn’t want to destroy anything, he just wants progress. Like Lenin making omelettes; a few eggs might get broken. Progress is like that.
Dear me, my good friend Nate, is so quick to see the mote in the eye of Adventist Progressives when he has this . . . well, we all know the rest. He talks about “ridiculing and expressing contempt for what is sacred to others.” Regretfully, some of us (myself included), being human, do occasionally wander off into that territory.
Obviously, I can only speak for myself but, in some cases, one is driven to that extreme way of expressing opinions, but that’s no excuse. Not that Nate does not do that, of course, since he only speaks absolute truth in every utterance.
No Adventist Christian Progressive that I know want to destroy the Adventist Church. As far a I can tell, their motivations are to make a little corner of it relevant to the realities of the 21st Century by removing from that part of modern Adventism the humanly-derived traditions that have grown up in our short history. Since most Progressive Adventists I know are “Big Tent” Adventists, I would assume that they see the value of having other parts of the tent free to do and believe whatever they consider to be important. “Destroy?” Hardly.
You are distorting and ignoring my point, Erv. It was not about who tells the truth and who doesn’t. My criticism of Larry, and to a lesser degree, progressive extremists in general on this website, is his penchant for peppering his opinions with gratuitous derision and ridicule for what many of us hold sacred, whether or not we agree with the argument.
If you will point out just what it is that progressives hold sacred, I will be careful to avoid ridiculing the objects of their faith walk.
As for “big tent Adventism,” I question the ostensible progressive commitment to big tent Adventism, just as I question progressive’s commitment to tolerance. Progressives, at least on this website, seem committed to forcing all Adventist faith communities into a progressive straitjacket. And why not, if progressive principles are a moral imperative? I tend to see the shibboleth of “big tent Adventism” more as a tactic to silence opposition to progressive values than as a principle to allow faith communities within Adventism to define themselves.
Thanks, Erv, rejoining isn’t in the cards. I left Adventsim since I didn’t want to be paid to represent what I no longer believed and I didn’t want to be tormented, or to torment, in advance of firing. I briefly did consider staying as an agent of change, but quickly decided it wasn’t possible, particular with the influence of a perceived prophet as the Impenetrable road block.
As to supping with you and your kind, that would be most welcome on my part. Atoday is my only place for any kind of intellectual exchange and the major reason of my sojourn here. I just spent 90 days in Vista/Oceanside, half of which I was bedbound with a respiratory ailment (totally recovered, now) , but could certainly have made the trip to Loma Linda, or wherever upon recovery, had I given it a thought. I live in a fifty-five plus community in Phoenix and have found no one with which to communicate on the issues we discuss.
I have no anger at Adventism, suffered no mistreatment perceived or otherwise, while a minister. I wasn’t openly rebellious and it was a shock to most around me when I left. I have never encouraged anyone to depart the church, except for several who were already driving in that direction. I have never regretted my exodus and haven’t joined any religious organization, and won’t. I’ve not called myself a “progressive” in any sense, but have been called “regressive,” even dangerous by detractors! My wife, too? Naw!
Thank you for your kind words.
Nathan,
You write:
Why do we emphasize the Exodus version of the Ten Commandments over the Deuteronomic version, which offers a different, but complimentary rationale for Sabbath keeping? It suggests that Sabbath is to be observed as a symbol of deliverance from enslavement to the political and religious naturalism found in Egypt
Did you know the ultra-orthodox Jews forbid the God-fearers, the gentile worshippers who worship with them from observing the Sabbath? I clip and copy this: A non Jew is not allowed to keep Shabbos. Those that are in the process of converting make sure to do at least one thing on Shabbos that would normally not be allowed. For example they might carry something in their pocket.
The Jews see the Sabbath as belonging exclusively to Israel. I think this is one of the reasons Adventists rely principally on the Genesis account to establish universal Sabbath-keeping. The Seventh-day Adventist church, like the Roman Catholic church tends to see itself replacing Israel – some call it replacement theology.
I myself think the unwitting genius of Seventh-day Adventist doctrine is its inclination to the Jew. Jesus Christ did nothing to alter the chosen status of physical Israel, of whom He is king. Believing in Him alters a gentile’s status. Kingship, kin & kingdom are all bound up together in our service and devotion to our Sovereign Lord.
I might be a little too far out in front for some of the Adventist brethren.
William, the rabbis taught that if a gentile, uncircumcised, tried to observe Sabbath, he would be killed. The Jews are jealous for their rites and rituals and always celebrated it in memory of their deliverance from Egypt, not a memorial of creation; that is Adventist teaching.
But of course, neither Paul nor any of the apostles to the gentiles taught Sabbath observance. The Resurrection was the one specific event that initiated Christianity. So it was only natural for them to begin celebrating on the day of the Resurrection. It gradually became the main day for Christians to meet for worship.
There was no celebration of praise of Christ’s death; had He not been raised from the dead there would be no Christian church as we know it today, the largest religion on the planet. His Resurrection gave birth to the church.
Elaine,
I think you simplify things too much. Paul was keeping the Sabbath, as were all the Jewish believers. Worship on the Sabbath would have been the normal course for them and the focus of their worship would have been Jesus Christ. I agree with you the Apostles were not teaching the gentile believers they needed to observe the Sabbath. But the Jewish believers were observing Sabbath. Gentile believers like the Centurion have no obligation to observe the Sabbath but they cannot escape it, let alone repudiate it. This business about killing gentile Sabbath observers is not Talmidic, is it? I’ve never heard that before. What is your source?
You seem to create a false dichotomy between the resurrection and the death of Jesus Christ. Liken the two, death and resurrection, to His seamless garment; indivisible – each act affirming the other. No death, no sacrifice. No resurrection, no acceptance and satisfaction.
William Abbott,
These are excellent responses you have provided to Elaine; and your analysis of why Seventh-day Adventists emphasize the Genesis and Exodus rationale for Sabbath observance is spot on as well, in my view.
William, no one said Paul was not observing the Sabbath as a Jew, even after accepting Christ. But he did not believe it was given to gentile Christians because (l): they were not made to submit to circumcision which prevented them from adopting the Jewish rituals and laws.
It was the gentiles who successfully propagated Christianity throughout the Empire; not the Jewish Christians.
The Jewish Christian movement was doomed by the rule requiring circumcision which was attempted at Jerusalem and repudiated by the apostles through the Holy Spirit. The Jewish Christians were dispersed and eventually disappeared from history; only partially reappearing in the mid-19th century in the Adventist movement which resurrected parts of Judaism and relevant to be observed today.
If Christ had intended Christians to adopt parts of Judaism, why the Holy Spirit’s directive against them from the the beginning?
Since you mention the Talmud, William, what do you make of it/them? There are reputed to be at least two, the more ‘mild’ Jerusalem version, and the more vehement Babylonian Talmud. It is said that the Khazar nation in about the eighth century converted to Judaism en masse, and generally took the Babylonian Talmud as their guide to faith and practice. Their descendents came to form the vast bulk of Eastern European jewry who have given us such things as Communism, and Zionism. If Elaine is correct regarding their (Talmudic) attitudes towards non-Jews who attempt to keep Shabat, then maybe the Vatican might be a preferred beastly master power to rule the world?
Serge,
Are you in some way equating Zionism with Communism? Marx was Jewish. He was German. He was not a Talmudist. He was an Atheist. He wasn’t from Eastern Europe. He was born in trier, near Luxembourg. Lenin, Stalin, Mao were not Jewish. Trotsky was, but again he was an Atheist. Stalin had him murdered in exile in 1940.
The genius that resides in individual Jews is certainly remarkable. Over 20% of Nobel Laureates have been Jews. Judaism gives us Jews, I would not say Judaism gave us Communism. Neither do I think the Jews crucified Jesus Christ.
I vicariously hold myself responsible for Christ’s death on the cross. Warren Nelson thinks that is a crazy worldview. I suppose I think it is the beginning of wisdom.
The Jews, who have suffered persecution for 2,000 years are not going eventually to become persecutors. Not only have they no history of proselytizing, but it is the Catholics who have persecuted and often forced conversions on pain of death.
In Paris in 1242, a huge bonfire destroyed 24 carloads of books, all copies of the Talmud that the King had ransacked from Jewish homes and synagogues. Below are a few lines from the Talmud:
“Love of humanity is more than charity. The value of charity lies only in love, whichh lives in it. Love surpasses charity in three respects: Charity touches only a man’s money; love touches the man himself. Charity is only for the poor; love is for both poor and rich. He who judges his neighbor leniently will himself be judged leniently by God. Let man always be intelligent and affable in his God-fearing. Let him answer softly, curb his wrath and let him live in peace with his brethren and his kin and with every man, yes, even with the pagan on the street, in order that he be beloved in heaven and on earth. The kindly man is the truly God-fearing man.”
Two hundred years later, the notorious Papal Inquisition began in Spain and thousands of Muslims and Jews were forced to convert, be expelled, or killed and all their property was confiscated. A prelude to the Holocaust that began in the late 1930s.
We’ve never read of a gentile who wanted to observe the Jewish Shabat and refused circumcision. The Jews were very protective and did not have a welcome to new wanna be converts. There was no reason to be concerned of foreign infiltrators as it was too difficult to live a Jew with all their many rites and prohibitions. It is the only world people that are both defined ethnically and religiously. There are ethnic Jews in every continent and nation in the world, but are always Jews, unlike most of us who may once have been Italian by birth but now are Americans.
Is it possible to have reasons given when a post is rejected? How does one learn from one’s mistakes?
Elaine, as I’ve recommended to William on several occasions, this outdated stereotypical view of Jews, Judaism, and Israel ‘ethnicity’ cannot go unchallenged. Shlomo Sand, who has many detractors to be sure, makes a powerful case for the non-ethnicity of Jews. There is no Abraham gene, despite decades of effort to find one. Most modern jews are descendents of proselytes. Many modern Palestinians are descendents of Jews who were in Palestine when the Moslems invaded and took control. There has been, around the time of the NT era, a lot of proselytising. As recently as the eighth century, the Khazar nation were proselytised en masse. ALso see Arthur Koestler’s ‘The thirteenth Tribe.’
Basic reading on this subject now must include Shomo Sand, ‘The Invention of teh Jewish People,’ ‘THe Invention of the Land of Israel,’ and ‘How I Stopped Being a Jew.’ Gilad Atzmon’s ‘The Wandering Who?’ is worth reading also. yes, there are many jewish writers who know their history and are willing to put the record straight. They are called ‘self-hating jews’ by the tribe. There are large groups, eg, Jews against Zionism, who are willing to stand against what they see is actually against the real interests of true ‘religious’ Jews. Modern Judaism is an amalgam of so many different groups and forces that it cannot be seen as a single ethnic and religious entity, as your posts are suggesting.
Serge,
What do you believe about the Jewishness of Jesus? More to the point, what did Jesus the Messiah think about His Jewishness?
What did He mean when He said, “Salvation is of the Jews”?
Serge,
Modern Judaism is an amalgam of so many different groups and forces that it cannot be seen as a single ethnic and religious entity, …
Hitler’s National Socialists slaughtered the Jews as though they were a single ethnic and religious entity. Perhaps your sympathies are with the Holocaust revisionists, those other brave modern historians who as you put it- “who are willing to stand against what they see is actually against the real interests of true ‘religious’ Jews.”
I am not a scientist but I am a believer in God. I also believe every word of the bible because of my faith in God. As a bible believing Adventist I believe that no one can fully understand the creation story outside of the bible. If the bible says God created in six days and rested on the seventh then accept the account of the bible written by holy men inspired by God.
Recently the. Scholars of the Church have been debating the age of the earth but although I am not a scientist I want to simply make the following statements. When God in his creative activity made the trees, the animals etc and said “bring forth after their own kind and be fruitful and multiply “etc. I believe that God did not make seedlings but He made matured trees, He made matured birds,He made matured fishes, He made matured elephants etc, so therefore if the oak tree takes 300 years to be matured then when God made the oak tree then it was 300 years old and so it was with all God’s living creation.
When God also made Adam and Eve He did not make babies He made a matured man and woman so they were able to start planning a family.
We the non scholars of the church are jolted by these debates and we wonder what will be next. Is it that we are majoring in minors and not being concerned that we are living in the judgement time and we should more be concerned about building a relationship with our God that when our names are called it will be well with our souls. When we get to heaven we will know all…
Genesis I was written 3 or 4 millennial ago when the common worldview was far different than ours. It was written to the Israelites at that time not to us. We can gain valuable information about God by studying it. However, it must be read in the context in which it was written not in the context of the 21 century. Back then when the Israelites read Gen. 1 they did not visualize a spherical globe that spins on its axis and revolves yearly around the sun. Rather they saw a continuous flat landmass that included the then known world about which the sun, moon and stars orbited. Their worldview was institutive. To them the earth looked flat and it almost is. The Curvature of the earth is the reciprocal of it radius or 0.00025, almost flat. The sun, moon and stars appear to orbit the earth once each earth day, consequently, the geocentric model was a natural conclusion for them. Many Bible texts can be cited that reflects their world view. It is imperative that we read the Bible in their context not in ours. Many of the conflicts in the SDA church results from a failure on the part of some to acknowledge the contextual setting in which the Bible was written. Many think that they are reading the Bible literally, by taking what it says at face value, but they are not. It may be literal in a 21 century context, but not in context in which it was written.
It has been said again and again that God does not lie, and that is correct. But you don’t teach calculus to a second grader. If god spoke to ancient Israel using a 21 century world view his words would have fallen on deaf ears. Just because God accommodated his message to fit the worldview of ancient Israel does not make him a liar.
According to Scripture God in incomprehensible to man. Consequently, we can only understand who he is or what he is like in terms of analogy, metaphor and imagery. I want to point out the seventy day of the creation story, the day of Gods rest, has no evening or morning was the seventh day, and it was so. That implies that the preceding 6 says were Devine days of creation. Our weekly cycle is simply a metaphor for the Devine creation week in the same way that the earthly tabernacle was a metaphor for the Heavenly tabernacle. The priestly activities of the earthly tabernacle was a metaphor for the activities in the Heavenly tabernacle.
Opps. seventy should be seventh
I can’t speak directly to Nathan anymore since he announced my placement on his personal Index Librorum Prohibitorum.
So, I need a volunteer to convey to him the following (and please get it straight!) :————–)
Permanent fixtures can’t be destroyed.
If one’s faith is wobbly on its own, it is threatened by every breeze of challenge.
“My criticism of Larry, and to a lesser degree, progressive extremists in general on this website, is his penchant for peppering his opinions with gratuitous derision and ridicule for what many of us hold sacred, whether or not we agree with the argument.” Nathan Schilt
Larry, it’s incorrect for you to assume what you write somehow challenges the faith of those who read or don’t read your posts. The issue is not well thought out arguments or astute observations, it is derision and ridicule of what others hold sacred. Like Nathan, I routinely ignore your posts because you contribute absolutely nothing to my faith journey. People who deride and ridicule what others hold sacred are exhibiting personality traits, not religious dissent or variant beliefs.
Of course, the AToday “big tent” is not a fellowship of believers. It’s essentially a gathering of people from a common background. Unbelievers wouldn’t be tolerated in a community of faith but hometown fellows are usually welcome in their hometown [Adventism], regardless of their beliefs.
I bumped into a Jewish friend of mine after I believed in Christ. When I shared my faith with him, he launched into a profanity laced tirade, against Jesus personally and Christianity. I simply asked him to pull his car over to the side of the road, exited, and walked home. Didn’t want to be in the car with him. Our friendship ended that evening.
Your views are not a challenge to my faith.
OK!
AT,
Your website and content get better all the time. Except for one thing. I did read commenting faithfully for a while and then lost interest due to the following issues.
One, a small number of commenters dominate. Some, who couldn’t otherwise draw anyone on their own, misuse this forum to create a pervasive online presence. The more this happens, the less others want to participate.
Two, the bickering. You need moderation. Seriously. The more that stuff gets by that shouldn’t, it encourages interpersonal quibbling and kills substantive discussion.
Three, and perhaps worst of all, is the bickering among AT leaders. Can’t you guys discuss your differences by email? Why should anybody else be civil when it’s not modeled by you?
Hey Yeah Yeah,
I wouldn’t call it bickering. There are substantive philosophical differences amoungst the AT leadership. Explain why it would be better for them not to discuss their different opinions in an open forum.
If you think the discussions here are petty and trivial, and I assume you do, ‘brickering’ and ‘quibbling’ really leave no doubt – just keep skipping over them. Enjoy the good content at AT that gets your seal of approval.
Civil??! Have you seriously read anything in other forums? Is there an open, unmoderated discussion forum, anywhere on the worldwide web more civil in tone?
Maybe you want a censor, not a moderator, someone to clean up the unwashed and banish the disagreeable. The ‘least of these His brethren’ needn’t comment here.
May I say that “Yeah, I Went There” raises important points which AT leadership is seriously considering. Most of the concern expressed by him/her has been already been discussed at length. A way to deal with his/her number two point is coming. With regard to “bickering,” that is a valid point except that one person’s “bickering” is another individual’s “discussion.” What AT is modeling here is what is really going on all over Adventism, except that much of it is hidden from the ordinary church member in the pew. However, that does not reduce the importance of considering issue three raised by “Year, I went There.”
I appreciate both Erv’s and William’s comments. I also understand the sentiments of the pseudonymous “Yeah I went there.” (BTW, I’m not real keen on hiding behind pseudonyms) My wife would certainly agree, if she ever read the comments, that Atoday is too contentious for her tastes. Some of us have an easier time not personalizing robust disagreement.
Different styles are appropriate to different contexts. I often counsel my wife not to post controversial material on Facebook, because I don’t think that’s what Facebool is for. Of course if I had a Facebook account I might not be able to restrain myself.???? I think there is some value in transparency. I think it is healthy that AToday leadership can strongly disagree about what is of ultimate significance, yet remain committed to the idea of independent, diverse journalism within Adventism. AToday is frequently accused of being a mouthpiece for the Adventist Left. I am, without doubt, the most conservative voice in AToday leadership – though by traditional Adventist standards, I’m certainly not very conservative. Sharp words and bon mots may strike some as hostile and unnecessary. But sometimes the truth is best revealed in that manner. AToday is fun for me – fun because I like words and ideas. It is also provocative, because sometimes commentaries and comments are either deeply inspirational, or they provoke other deeply inspirational comments.
AToday does not have “safe zones.” Don’t take it too seriously.
If there are changes to be made, one would be about the format of comments. They should be in chronlogical order and the name of the individual your comment is directed to should be given. This would make it much easier to follow, IMO.
Elaine wrote:
“It’s all metaphor. How can it be otherwise when no one observed and it was written centuries later.”
What about Gen 3:19 ” in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. ”
metaphor ar literal?
Did it never occur to you that a statement can be both literal and metaphor? A metaphor must have a literal origin. “By the sweat of your brow” can be both: a manual laborer in the hot sun will be sweating; but a mental worker may also be metaphorically “sweating” while preparing his taxes due or simply making any kind of living.
As to coming from dust, do you know where you were before you were conceived? The Genesis story recounts how Adam was formed from clay and surely, all the dead who have gone before us have become dust. Literal?
Metaphor?
I seldom participate because of the time involved. However some possible points of interest may be useful. If you are a creationist as I am, then it seems logical to me that before God created matter, HeShe had first to spell out the rules by which that matter would behave. The must have been drawn before that first “Let there be light moment”. The rules by which inanimate nature behaves are called the laws of physics. Man has been discovering and applying these rules since man existed. We are all convinced that gravity exists. Most of us have done an experiment verifying gravity. (We dropped something.) After some physical phenomenon is first noticed, then measurements are made and some mathematical statement is hoped for and sometimes found. Isaac Newton formulated the first mathematical theory of gravity. The laws of electricity were discovered over hundreds of years by different curious individuals, but were only grouped together mathematically by James Clerk Maxwell, and are known as Maxwell’s equations. Their application has made possible many of the inventions which give humans their present standard of living.
Discovery of radioactivity in about 1880 has changed our world. One of the applications of radioactivity is a dating process. Physicists consider the dates obtained using these techniques to be quite accurate, usually within a few percent. Since fossils are found in various strata, then the general thinking is that the fossils must be about the same age.
CONTINUED: If a rock in a fossil bearing strata is measured to be 350 million years old, the conclusion is that the fossils are also that old. For that time span the the accuracy should be within about 10 million years, or roughly 3%. The dating process is complex, difficult, and requires expensive equipment. This process provides the answers that are most often attacked by short agers.
Physical science is a self correcting science. Some clever graduate student is always trying to make a name for themselves by overturning some established law. There have been many attempts, and there will be more, but all have failed so far for radioactive dating.
Geologists use the principal of uniformity to interpret geological deposits. This principal is simply stated as “The present is the key to the past.” I asked a geologist friend what this meant. His reply was that the processes that you see in nature today are the same ones that occurred here millions of years ago. There have always been earthquakes, and there have always been floods, thunderstorms, and droughts. We use these ideas to interpret what we see in geology.
Moving from being a short ager when I was young to being convinced of a long age has been an interesting journey. How can I interpret the Bible from a long age perspective? I believe in miracles. I believe that Jesus really healed and raised from the dead. But those healed persons eventually died. Different observers describe the same event differently.
“The basic equation of radiometric dating requires that neither the parent nuclide nor the daughter product can enter or leave the material after its formation. The possible confounding effects of contamination of parent and daughter isotopes have to be considered, as do the effects of any loss or gain of such isotopes since the sample was created. It is therefore essential to have as much information as possible about the material being dated and to check for possible signs of alteration.”
George, all measuring devices are determined by someone and are calibrated to produce a consistent and repeated result. How is radiocarbon dating calibrated?
Correction
Not: “produce a consistent and repeated result”, but produce accurate and repeated results.
DD, Carbon 14 dating is a good example of the self correcting nature of physical science. After Libby’s first papers, carbon dating became popular, and financial investments for dating laboratories were made. Then Carbon samples known to have come from a specific place were dated using Carbon 14. There was disagreement from a historical context which was supported by an eclipse observation. A closer look was needed.
The half life of C14 was more carefully measured, and it was recognized the the rate of production of C14 was not necessarily constant throughout history. Then there was the nuclear testing done in the 1950’s. Adjustments had to somehow be made.
It has been sometime since I have been personally involved. My current understanding is that a chart is constructed. On one axis is the actual date (historical or otherwise) and the other axis has the C14 date. A point is thus determined. Many other corresponding dates are also plotted and a graph or chart can then be constructed. When possible obtaining a date using uranium thorium can also be plotted. The current thinking(?) is that these dates are currently within two per cent or better.
Check out the Science magazine article about dating the cave painting in Northern Spain or Southern France. The question of contamination is addressed there.
Thanks for your question.
George,
You write: “The present is the key to the past.” I asked a geologist friend what this meant. His reply was that the processes that you see in nature today are the same ones that occurred here millions of years ago.
You have to take that on faith. There are a lot of assumptions underlying it. We are likely not cognizant of all the processes at work in the present, let alone competent to extend them back in time. Too many gaps, too many assumptions and too many false conclusions. It would be refreshing to hear some honest soul say, were really don’t know how old everything is.
I won’t be holding my breath.
The rather recent theory or assumption that at some indeterminate time in the past events moved more slowly or rapidly than we know today became popular with young earth creationists. IOW: doubting the ages assigned by scientists but with no apparent reason why events moved much more rapidly in this earth in ages past than are observed today. The Grand Canyon, which scientists agreed was millions of years in the making, are doubted by YEC so theorize that a world wide flood could have formed this in a few short years; no peer reviewed papers needed.
We can only trust what we know today to be evident and base our knowledge of past events on the present. Postulating a completely different time table for the past is sheer speculation based on the inability to trust scientists to be honest in their assessments. It’s the same as someone unfamiliar with the body chemistry and disease to distrust the physician’s diagnosis because he doesn’t like the physician or his personal beliefs.
‘
Elaine,
Simple question. Was it assumed or observed before July 2015 that Pluto had essentially no atmosphere? The question isn’t whether we should trust the scientists. The question is: Should the scientists trust themselves?
Without postulating any alternate timetable why can’t we speculate that the multiple assumptions used in the modeling the past might very well lead up to substantive error.
This is science below: I trust the honesty of the observers –
Rhenium-187 is another spectacular example, [of changing decay rates]. 187Re normally beta decays to 187Os with a half-life of 41.6 × 109 years,[25] but studies using fully ionised 187Re atoms (bare nuclei) have found that this can decrease to only 33 years. This is attributed to “bound-state β− decay” of the fully ionised atom – the electron is emitted into the “K-shell” (1s atomic orbital), which cannot occur for neutral atoms in which all low-lying bound states are occupied.[26] Wikipedia
I’m not arguing the earth doesn’t appear to be very old. I’m arguing scientists ought to have the humility to admit it really can’t tell you how old. They don’t know and they can’t know.
They do know it wasn’t created six thousand years ago. And what is a few million, or a few billion, years in an infinite universe?
William, I looked up some references about Rhenium and Rhenium decay. Several questions occurred to me:
1. Just how does one strip 75 electrons from the atom?
2. How does an electronic process influence a nuclear process?
A story has recently been circulated that the decay constants are dependent upon the seasons. The article was attributed to scientists at Ohio State University. When this was presented to my as having been published, I laughed. How does the position of the Earth in relation to the Sun have any thing to do with nuclear processes? The study(?) was later refuted by someone at Purdue. The erroneous conclusion was blamed upon inadequate instrumentation. What I suspect was that this was no study at all, but was just another example of some Christian doing sloppy work and claiming a breakthrough. Maybe he was telling the truth, and really had some data. Remember that story about the Cummins Computer engineer at Goddard space center who was able to find Joshua’s dark day. Someone at the GC went out to check on this work. Officials at Goddard had never heard of that individual. I thank the then church administration for the investigation.
I do not know if the Rhenium investigation was valid or not. I have not the time or the interest on investigating the research. I am skeptical.
It is a true statement that we do not know how old everything is. But we do know some things. We know when Vesuvius erupted and covered Pompeii. We know both from history and radioactive dating. We are pretty sure (within a few months) when Ahab died because of Assyrian records which mention Ahab and an eclipse. Our dating of the exodus comes from the date of Ahab’s death tied to the dedication of Solomon’s temple. An eclipse is mentioned in the history of one of the Egyptian kings (8th dynasty, I believe). The date of the eclipse is known to within a few seconds, even taking into the fact that the the Earth is gradually slowing its rate of rotation. I believe that these dates are accurate. However, I am assuming that the year still contains the same number of seconds that the year contained those many years ago. I am assuming that the Moon still revolves at the same rate today that it did back in the time of the Egyptian kings. It is an assumption, but it seems to me to be quite reasonable. I have been to the Grand Canyon, and it appears to me that that canyon was made by the erosion of water. Water is still carving the canyon. My assumption that water carved the canyon in the past seems quite reasonable. Since water flows downhill now, I assume that it did 100,000 years ago. I do not know, but I am pretty sure. Actually, I do know! Because the laws of physics have not changed in the last 2,000,000,000. We know because of the light from Andromeda.
Dr. Saxon,
My examples above demonstrate, not that the laws of physics change. They demonstrate our understanding of physics change. What we thought we observed, what we thought we ‘knew’ is subject to revision. The laws of physics probably don’t change, we don’t know. But we do know our understanding changes the more we study physics. Quantum Physics rests on a stochastic foundation of conjecture and uncertainty. The human imagination and our desire for knowledge and certainty is what compels us to say, ‘we know’ or to imagine we have correctly made all the right assumptions. The probability we are wrong (totally or partially) about the unrecorded, prehistoric past is probably so high as to be almost certain were are seldom right.
Error is the predominant conclusion to inquiry when you chain assumptions together.
George, thank you for your previous reply.
This may be a ridiculous question, but here goes: “Is the speed of light determined by the distance it travels or by the delay in receiving the image/signal from our eyes to the brain?
One method of determining the speed of light was Foucault method, using the rotating mirror. Obviously this method would be subject to error simply because the speed of the rotating mirror could vary.
DD, Thank you for your interest. It appears that the speed of light is a constant in that it has been measured many times by many different means, and the results are all about the same. Great care has been taken to minimize any measuring errors in any of the measurements involved. So far no one has been able to show any major variance from the value that I learned when I was about 10 years old.
We try to eliminate judgement based upon the physical senses when possible. We can often let electronic measuring devices make the measurements.
If possible, you might try to visit a physics lab at a university and get grad student to demonstrate the measurement of the speed of light using a Michaelson Interferometer.
Hope this brief helps your understanding.
Thank you, George.
CONTINUED: I am assuming that the gospels Matthew and John were written by those individuals. I believe that Mark took dictation from Peter, and that Luke and the Acts were recounted based upon interviews and other research by Luke. This assumption may be incorrect, but does not really matter. The theological essays of Paul were written after much thought and certainly represent his conclusions. The book of Hebrews also shows considerable thought. Books of Samuel and Kings appear to have a Judean author, since his prejudice is readily apparent. All of the books has some history of authorship, and generally tell a story, from the author to the leadership in the case of prophets, or of history. Genesis is different. The two creation stories by different authors were not written by someone who saw the events. How did the authors get the stories? Genesis 1 appears to have been written around 350 bce.
I believe that God is a loving God who always tells the truth to those capable of understanding the ideas presented. If God were unloving or dishonest, I would not be very interested in spending eternity with him. For these reasons I cannot take everything that is written in the Bible as being spoken from God. I cannot justify the exploitation and subservience of women or the penalties for aberrant sexual behavior as messages from God.
Thank you Ervin Taylor for you work.
Thank you Elaine Nelson for your kind and thoughtful contributions.
George Saxon
George, we can all learn if we are willing to listen to those who have made a lifetime of study on a subject. There’s a world of study just on how the canon was written and how religions, including the three monotheist ones began.
But do we not also have countless generations of unproven and unfruitful studies?
May I thank Dr. Saxon for his kind wordsl
Elaine wrote:
“It’s all metaphor. How can it be otherwise when no one observed and it was written centuries later.”
What about Gen 3:19 ” in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. ”
metaphor ar literal?
C’mon Elaine, I’m waiting for your reply!!
George Saxon has clearly delineated the divide between fact and belief. He accepts and applies what humans have observed and learned about the cosmos and the particle of it that is the earth. And he has outlined his faith in the separate form of an opinion that is outside of scientific facts, a profession of faith. Good show, George!
There is a lesson there for all creationists who attempt to remodel or deny facts to fit your scheme of a young earth. You can believe what you wish, but you can’t credibly deny facts. You don’t need to.
Bugs,
What’s to deny? I just have some questions about the Carbon Cycle. If the production of C14 is constant, if we assume the incoming particle flux which creates C14 hasn’t varied, then doesn’t the variable amount of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere and biosphere change the ratio C14 to C12 deposited in living tissue. How does Carbon dating reliably work if you have a fluctuating ratio C14 to C12? Atmospheric CO2 is fluctuating right now and we have seen a remarkable increase in the last fifty years.
Carbon dating depend on assumptions about constant ratios of C14 and C12. What we observe right now in the carbon cycle makes those assumptions dubious at best. I want to talk about the facts.
I am not a scientist, only a science dilettante, William. Of course, questioning any proposition is legitimate. But even I know carbon dating is only one of a plethora of verifications the earth/universe is billions of years old.
Supposing your suspicion of the dubious assumptions about C14 and C12 are confirmed? So what? It would in all likelihood be a matter of scale, not total disproval. While carbon dating is an important tool establishing earth ages, it isn’t the only one. Physicists, geologists and astronomers have a plethora of other sourced, parallel information, that is affirmative of an old earth.
The eagerness with which young earthers grasp tiny anomaly morsels demonstrates a hope of a total, last minute, reversal of information that can never occur. And it reeks of desperation.
William and Bugs-Larry,
Carbon dating can help us estimate the relative ages of organic matter, but it is absolutely useless for determining the age of older rocks, if you claim the age of the latter to be millions or billions of years. The measurable levels of C14 decay below background levels in 10s of 1000s of years.
Deep age radiometric dating is based upon assumptions about the mechanisms of inorganic mineral formation. Carbon dating is not part of this discussion.
Web Ed:
Why do many comments have no place for “reply” and individual replies are often far away from the place where they should be answered?
Serge,
In reply to your comment on an “Abraham gene” that is fallacious. There is no such gene of any people today that can be traced to an ancient ahistorical figure. There is no absolute certainty of a man called Abraham but is tradition based on oral accounts, written centuries or more later.
Gene studies are now being made but nothing directed to an individual or individuals, but thousands of years ago to show where your original ancestors where from (nearly always east Africa) and the gradual migrations through several continents over a period of thousands of years.
No one can say with certainty that his ancestors thousands of years ago originated in Britain, France or Germany, as there have been so many wars, migrations, plagues and intermarrying that we are all “mixed”, but with some more predominant features that others.
Jews have self-identified in their writings that they were chosen by God who ordered no intermarrying with other tribes. We know how well that worked out. They also claim that Jewishness can be ethnicity and religion.
Who can argue with their assessment? Their history has been better documented that most any other people; Believe or reject without evidence
“No one can say with certainty that his ancestors thousands of years ago originated in Britain, France or Germany,…”
Elaine, it’s a matter of “faith” in God’s written record, the Bible, of course, that we can be certain we all came from Noah and his sons. Otherwise we are descendants of fish. Right? And how many “thousands of years” that was is again a matter of faith.
We can be happy for Mr. Abbott that he raised questions about the accuracy and precision of radiocarbon dating.
Let us initially assume that he would like to have serious and informed answers to his honest questions. Perhaps he would like to read a little bit about the technique before continuing. In his reading, he might find the answers to his honest questions.
There is a book that he might want to purchase or check out from a library entitled Radiocarbon Dating: An Archaeological Perspective, now in its 2nd edition. It was written by a UC Riverside archaeologist and Harvard archaeologist which covers a lot of the questions you might have.
There is also an excellent discussion of the technique on Wikapedia. Once Mr. Abbott has a chance to read up on the technique about which he most certainly has honest questions, he could then come back here if he still didn’t understand certain points, since there are people on this website who would be happy to help you.
As an example, Mr. Abbott asks: “If the production of C14 is constant, if we assume the incoming particle flux which creates C14 hasn’t varied, then doesn’t the variable amount of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere and biosphere change the ratio C14 to C12 deposited in living tissue.?” In his reading, he will discover that the answer to that honest question is no.
Professor Taylor,
I’m back. I read the Wikipedia article on Radiocarbon dating like you suggested. I now suggest you read it. You will find the Wikipedia article says yes, the ratio of C14 to C12 collected in living tissue is in fact variable.
Please read the section titled, Atmospheric Variation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating#Atmospheric_variation
If you will also read the section Calibration you will find the historical variability in the C14/C12 ratio is a huge issue. The assumption the ratio is constant is incorrect.
The calculations given above produce dates in radiocarbon years: i.e. dates that represent the age the sample would be if the 14C/12C ratio had been constant historically. Although Libby had pointed out as early as 1955 the possibility that this assumption was incorrect, it was not until discrepancies began to accumulate between measured ages and known historical dates for artifacts that it became clear that a correction would need to be applied to radiocarbon ages to obtain calendar dates.
Now I have one more question. Why did you tell me, “In his reading, he will discover that the answer to that honest question is no.”? I went to your referenced source and found answer is yes.
Am I to conclude you don’t know what you are talking about?
William and Ervin,
Re Carbon dating and Wikipedia, I think your ships have managed to sail past each other with a near miss.
Ervin is technically correct in his reference to Wikipedia, because William’s comment regarding constant radiation flux etc left too much wiggle room.
The elephant in the room which neither of you have addressed is that while we have a good grasp of the Carbon cycle in the atmosphere, and its interaction with the terrestrial biome, we have major gaps of our understanding of the Carbon cycle as it relates to the oceans. There is a major implicit assumption about the stable rate of exchange of Carbon between atmosphere and oceans which is highly suspect. The same issues that challenge modeling climate change in the present, also affect modeling of Carbon exchange in the past.
Disclaimer – I am not a climate change “denier”.
Disclaimer – I am not a radioisotope “denier”.
I am merely claiming the there may still be a much larger error of estimate in Carbon dating than its strongest adherents care to admit.
Excerpted from “The Times of Israel” May, 2012:
“The nation of Israel defines one who can be a citizen of Israel based on halakah (Jewish religious law)–born to a Jewish mother or converted through a recognized rabbinate.
“But if Jews are not a religious community they are not a race either. It is more a shared history, experiences, similar cultural traditions and practices, IOW a sense of belonging to one’s own group.
“That is why Shlojo Sand’s book, while provocative and worthy of discussion, should not be taken as a treatise on the future of Israel as a Jewish state. Being Jewish, like being an Armenian, Kurd, or American, is about belonging to a larger social community–one that is not bound by genetic markers, geographic borders, or exclusive religious practices.”
Elaine, the following articles on the “End Times Deceptions” website seems to follow what you have provided regarding the origins of present day Jews, or Israel:
“The Re-gathering Deception”
“Who are the Jewish people of today related to? What does DNA science reveal about who are the ancestors of the Jews?”
“Rabbinical Torah Jews believe that the Zionist state of Israel is illegitimate in the eyes of God and that it DOES NOT represent true Jews or Judaism.”
If one wishes to become a citizen of Israel the courts there will decide who is a Jew.
Just like individuals who can claim to be Adventist either from long family history, belief, or belonging to a group. Only a congregation can ultimately determine who should be a member, however.
I am no scientist, nor am I a theologan; but I have a fair understanding of the English language, and a good measure of common sense. I feel sure that I have not yet lost my reason. In fact, each year added to my life brings me more reason.
Scientists may be mistaken about a lot of what they conclude about an old earth. There may be flaws in the tools they use to measure the age of rocks and geological structures; but the arguments some put forward to conclude that the earth is more than six thousand years old, make more sense than that of those who use the Bible to try to convince us of a young earth. In fact, the Bible does not teach that the earth is six thousand years old, nor does it suggest that the earth is young. It says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was without form and void”. It does not say how long the earth remained empty and in chaos before what we call “creation week”. It might well be millions or billions of years.
It is one thing to say that you believe in the Genesis story because it is given by inspiration from God; but it another thing to read the stories in Genesis, and realise that the two stories related there contradict each other; and there is no way you can reconcile both. This means that the Bible account is not reliable, however you believe it is inspired. And this brings me to the matter of honesty and sincerity. To be continued.
It has occurred to me that the idea of the rules of physics changing means that God made some kind of mistake when He first made up those rules. Really? Would it not be easier just to change the Sabbath. That would only require a change is some human behavior and some long held opinions. Having the Earth stand still would mean somehow preventing tidal waves from occurring, since the water would certainly continue is velocity of about 1000 mph if not somehow restrained.
BTW, there is an example in Adventist theology where physics has overridden a plain statement from the Bible. Forever burning hell is plainly stated in the Bible, but Adventists, correctly in my opinion, call upon the laws of thermodynamics (probably unknowingly) to insist that the fires burn themselves out, and are not eternal.
Most members who are of limited literacy depend on their leaders and pastors to explain for them what they perceive as difficult topics, or difficult texts in the Bible; and so, they go about reflecting the ideas and outlook of these leaders. When they are confronted by these difficulties, they simply rehearse what they hear from their leaders. But we do not expect pastors and other leaders to go about blindly mirroring and parrotting the views of other people. In the process, many of our leaders, mislead innocent, honest people. And why must pastors teach doctrines they do not believe in? To please their bosses, and hold their jobs? Then, these are mere mercenaries, and are unfit to be leaders!
Although I do not accept everything they offer, I am impressed by the contributions of George Saxon and Ppriest on this topic. Even I can understand, and make sense of what they explain. Ionly hope that those who have ears to hear, will hear
To some people, Buggs/Larry is too abraisive, and to some,of nuissance value; but I admire him for his candour. He may be wrong; but he stands by his conviction. What he says is difficult for some to say, and more difficult for others to listen to; but he has a point. What some people say, and what some believe of God, is nothing short of ridiculous: a God who has to play to the gallery of the host of the unfallen worlds, who orders the slaughter of whole nations, who countenances the suffering of millions without intervening,…
This has been a fascinating, informative and provocative discussion among George Saxon and others. I particularly want to thank George Saxon for plunging in, and providing such lucid writing and explication of concepts that are difficult for non-scientists like myself. My heart is warmed whenever I read thoughtful analyses that take seriously the light that science shines on the natural world, without dimming or extinguishing the light that faith sheds on that world.
con’td.) simply to satisfy some one somewhere that he is being fair to Lucifer: who throws the Devil out of heaven because he does not fit in there; but on to earth inhabited by poor weaklings, etc, etc,etc. What kind of God is that! I agree that we need a more sensible concept of our God. The limited experience we have had with God over the ages we have been dealing with Him, deserves a higher regard for, and a more lofty concept of Him!
Elaine is a treasure. So often she has brought her experience and wisdom to bring clarity to the discussion! Some of my fundamentalist friends do not like some of her ideas; but that is what discussion is all about; and we cannot all believe the same things. Eventually, she is more equipped to give a more satisfactory advice than many. Let us thank God for her devotion.
“We need a more sensible concept of God.”
May I suggest that we need a more Biblical experiential relationship with God. I do not believe God is to be found in concepts. The God that I find in Scripture usually manifests Himself as anything but sensible – from The Garden onward. It is only through obedience, in the course of covenant relationship that God, that He becomes sensible. If we start out looking for a God who is sensible, rejecting those aspects of His self-revelation that are incompatible with our moral sense, we are looking for a god made in our own image.
“It is one thing to say that you believe in the Genesis story because it is given by inspiration from God; but it another thing to read the stories in Genesis, and realise that the two stories related there contradict each other; and there is no way you can reconcile both.”
Nathaniel, doesn’t chapter two describe in more detail what God did in the six days of creation, namely, how He made Adam and Eve? I don’t see two creation stories which contradict each other.
“It is one thing to say that you believe in the Genesis story because it is given by inspiration from God; but it another thing to read the stories in Genesis, and realise that the two stories related there contradict each other; and there is no way you can reconcile both.”
Nathaniel, doesn’t chapter two describe in more detail what God did in the six days of creation, namely, how He made Adam and Eve? I don’t see two creation stories which contradict each other.
It has been said that “Quantum Physics rests on a stochastic foundation of conjecture and uncertainty.” Such a claim is based on a lack of knowledge of quantum Physics. Everything in the universe is composed of only a few different kinds of elementary particles: electrons, quarks, etc. These particles con interact in only limited ways. This means that everything that takes place in nature results from interactions between these fundamental particles. . The operation of any device, experimental or otherwise, can be analyzed in terms of the interactions between the particles that make device. Only four types of interactions are known to exist. These result from the four known forces: gravity, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear. These four interactions are the cause of everything that happens in the universe. When the law of conservation of energy is tested in modern experiments, it is done by interacting fundamental particles. One experiment may involve billions of particles and the interaction of each particle amounts to a separate measurement. Out of the billions of measurements the probable error is found to be only one part out of 1015¬ . If billions of measurements give the same results that knowledge acquires a very high degree of certainty.. That is quantum physics. Verifiable knowledge is the hallmark of science
Ppriest,
If you doubt the assumptions about stochastic processes an uncertainty, perhaps you should review the work of Heisenberg and Schroedinger and Dirac?
These are high-order statistical models. The reason particle physics demand high-sigma levels of confidence in measurements is because these are statistical models.
That’s 10 to the 15th power.
Some Adventists, and especially pastors who are employed and taught what to say, have accepted the Adventist church as has the Catholic: outside the church there is neither truth, salvation, or forgiveness of sin. Just as true Catholics for whom the Pope defines the faith, so for Adventists, their leader defines what is to be taught, read, and preached.
It is always the same as we work these things out. But we need to remember that we together are working these things out. It’s easy to get stuck in a rut assuming we are gaining focus by loosing focus.
As millennials we appreciate everyone in their earnest seeking, but I think we are less individual. The strive a few generations back was the logicional alignment and communication between all disciplines, with the last generation being the resultant, but not because of the strive. It just happened (because of HIM).
We have lived through hot and cold dark matter, string, entanglement and the many other theoretical proposals to fill holes. We still have the holes. The uncertainty principles are now even more uncertain. We have no way to account for the standard mass requirements, well less explain the deficit. We are unable to tell you where an electron is, when it isn’t there and shows back up. We measure and discard, because we cannot explain the measure?
We know the issues with carbon creation and decay, along with the many issues of absorption and dissipation. The radiation sources, solar flairs, magnetic impact and flux, retention inhibitors and the multitude of other variables into calibrating the scale. We can measure the decay of heaver materials, but they exist only in certain areas. We can only use the best that we have and currently understand.
But then we contend to know and are capable of replacing everything? (The root problem).
In theological proposals, just to be neutral. Could GOD not have created an old earth? Could we be the second or later spin up, since there is no new thing under the sun? Maybe the difference in Genesis 1 and 2? How long was Adam in the garden alone? How long were Adam and Eve in the garden? Was it long enough for satan to become jealous? How long was that?
I would not propose outside of Doctrinal bounds and these are the things I have heard, but many of the proposals do seem like they are outside of scientific bounds. But then I also see many proposals outside of Doctrinal bounds, attempting to rewrite HIM, while HE does not change. I will admit I am more than bias towards HIM.
Yes, Whispering Hope. God created the world last Thursday with such skill we are fooled into thinking it is at least six thousand years old, or billions of years old. So we are not a week old and don’t even know it. Apparently he repeats the process every Thursday so we only appear to age.
Of course, I’m just being silly and in concert with a tongue-in-cheek proposition that espouses that outlook (www.last-thursday.org/). Hope you aren’t left handed!
Whisper Tribe,
The problem with your question: “Could GOD not have created an old earth?” It is a science question that cannot be discussed scientifically. The question of age comes up in the first place because observations and measurements indicate that life/planets/the universe is old. To posit: ‘God made them to appear old’ is to step outside the observations and measurements.
Let me take the liberty of rephrasing your question: Has God revealed to us He created the universe to be measurably and observably old?
But scientifically, if we look into the theory of creation which is as valid as any other, would HE not have to create an old earth and maybe universe? Simply to support life? To cool the temperatures, create the stabilities of environment, create the atmosphere to protect from the light and along with a host of other requirements?
Psalms 102:25 Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.
I listen intently, but haven’t convinced myself if want or even care to know certain things. Maybe it comes down to seeking knowledge compared to does it profit me? I haven’t figured out rhyme or reason to those things I care about yet either. Not a lack of caring about a subject or issue, but maybe a lack of desire to have focus? More like maybe I am not the best to be commenting on this, other than in opinion?
George Saxon and Paul Priest,
Should I be flattered you are not interested and skeptical?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay This is the source for Rhenium 187 decay rates. It will only take a minute to look at, I promise it is not tainted with Christianity or Creationism. Look under the sub-heading Changing Decay Rates. Not interested?
Paul, so you can predict when radioactive atoms will decay? You do understand Schrödinger’s thought experiment about the cat? Why do you object to my characterizing the new physics as having a stochastic foundation?
Erv Taylor,
Thank you for your reply.* I’m glad to know that AT leadership is considering these problems.
I agree that what to one person constitutes bickering is perhaps just a discussion to another. However, for the purposes that AT seeks to serve it’s important to consider that a culture is created by the type of discussion. Since discussions here generally involve a small group of usual commenters it indicates that the current culture is one that doesn’t work for drawing many others.
*Another problem with this commenting system. Without notifications, one doesn’t know whether there have been replies without returning to the thread and searching through it.
“Since discussions here generally involve a small group of usual commenters, it indicates that the current culture is one that doesn’t work for drawing many others.”
That is an interesting hypothesis, but highly speculative. By that reasoning, Sabbath School classes seldom work, unless they are quite small, because relatively few attendees actually want to make comments. How much diversity in the commenters is needed to know that the culture is working? It is my sense that the topic has a lot to do with bringing in new commenters. When W. O. was the issue d’jour, readership spiked, and a lot of new commenters joined the discussion. Ditto for LGBT issues.
Most websites measure their success by visitors to the website. If you have thousands of visitors a week to a website, and it is growing, doesn’t that suggest that the website is drawing people in? Why does it suggest a problem with “current culture” if they don’t care to participate in the conversation?
Nathan Schilt,
I was referring to commenting, not the website content, as I made clear in my original comment. I gave my reasons for losing interest in following comments here as feedback perhaps helpful to AT. Perhaps it wasn’t, judging from your response, and obviously AT has the right to discount my take as singular or on any basis.
Your comparison to a Sabbath School class. Why most attendees don’t want to comment should be assessed. There may be class and teacher factors inhibiting wider participation. What seems speculative to me is assuming that there’s nothing that could be changed. Given a desire to expand participation, that is.
Not assuming nothing could be changed, “Yeah I Went There.” Suggestions for change are always appreciated, and I would give up my personal preference for open – sometimes sharp – dialogue in a heartbeat if I was convinced that more gatekeepimg of comments or commenters would increase readership or support. I just intuitively believe that this type of website attracts certain types of temperaments as commenters and readers. I feel that those who enjoy robust exchange of ideas aren’t going to turn away because there’s not enough gender, racial, ethnic , etc., diversity. It’s like NFL football. If the NFL started sponsoring “fantasy recipe leagues” to draw more females in as football fans, or if they limited viewership to one male per household, I don’t think those measures would accomplish their purpose.
But that’s just my opinion. I’m always open to suggestions and experimentation.
William, sorry for getting back so slowly. I have been setting some concrete forms. I read your Wikipedia article and I don’t agree with your conclusions.
According to the article, situations in which there is a change in decay rate involve either electron capture or completely ionized atoms, not normal alpha, beta, gamma decay. The isotopes used in radiometric age dating involve alpha and beta decay and do not fall under the categories described in the article. In nature the outer shells electrons are involved in chemical bonding and can be lost or gained or shared depending upon the nature of the bond. . The nucleus and electron cloud of an atom interact with the electromagnetic force. The attraction of a positive proton and negative electron is what holds the electrons to an atom. As you remove electrons in the process of ionization the attraction of the nucleus for the remaining electrons increases and it takes much more energy to remove more electrons. It takes a lot of energy to remove all the electrons from an atom. Such energy sources needed to completely ionize large atom are not found in the earth’s crust. In the case of Dy-163 163 electrons must be completely removed. When that happens a proton decays into a neutron and electron and the electron is captured in the s shell of the electron cloud. A similar situation exists for Re-187.
Neither case represents situations that normally occur on earth. Using these examples to support the unreliably of radiometric dating is not sound argument. maybe this will help.
William, you say you believe in an old earth, yet you seem to reject the radiometric methods for measuring the earth’s age. You don’t get an earth age from the Bible. So what evidence do you use to justify your belief?
Paul,
To quote myself precisely I said I have never denied old earth chronology. I save ‘belief’ for more important matters. I wouldn’t say I believe in it either. I argue with a number of people who are proponents of and believe in OEC. Count me skeptical of both fortune-tellers and necromancers. I know nothing about the age and origins of life/earth/universe through observations.
From my perspective the future is veiled. The sun may come up tomorrow morning, but I don’t know that. I’m willing to accept it is highly probable. I make plans assuming it is going to happen. I know nothing about the future – I avoid taking it for granted – especially when I buy stock. Assumptions are not knowledge.
I’m interested in history, I understand how difficult it is to apprehend the past. Historically speaking, I know a lot about what I don’t know and can’t know. “Knowing what you don’t know” is more than a cliche, it is a first principle.
I’ve tried to use Pluto as an example multiple times here to explain the paradox of assumptions. It is nothing short of astonishing man, collectively, has sent a spacecraft whizzing past Pluto and relaying images and info back to earth. We have been looking at Pluto, ever since its discovery. Its hard to see, but doable with the Hubble. What did we see? What we imagined we would see. We are not talking about imagining the past or the future, we are making observations and measuring in the present. cont…
I don’t think anyone rejects the tools for measuring the age of objects, but we also understand the limits of the tools and the persons that use them (Williams point).
We have experiments that do note the discharge from energy sources impacts both decay and creation (not just isotopic derivatives). The sun is the greatest example of generator and collider in our solar system, with variations and fluctuations within itself. The magnetosphere reflects or concentrates also in variations. The amass of particles and waves have to go somewhere, without loss in conservation.
Conservation is the issue. The test tube of our little planet in this solar system is an experiment, not the vacuum of a lab. Luckily it still does not provide examples like black holes or pulsars to study up close or we wouldn’t be here. The standard forces are at play and the standard processes are in action, but we also need to remember the materials are also conserved. Used over and over again in the fluid activities in this little test tube. I am partial to Physics myself, but I think we would all agree that all disciplines are required to understand, even us, in this test tube?
Hopefully building up HIM in the beauty of the picture, science in the study of the picture and the Body in the need for all of us to study and be in the picture? Not tearing down anything in HIM?
cont.
Pluto is unimaginably exciting and our new observations are full of unexplainable surprises. Science is like that. Throw most everything away, maybe its your life’s work. We know better now.
You never have to do that with say, climate models. When a model fails, you just build a better model. “This one works, trust me.” All models work until they don’t. Ask the Quants of Wall Street – they discovered their models can lose money faster than they can make it. So much for predicting the future. Making money buying and selling stocks is a lot easier than figuring out the age of origins.
When you tell me you know how old the earth is (expressed in proper probability form) you are telling me about your model. It will work until it doesn’t. You are modeling the past.
I have fun pointing out why your model probably doesn’t work. You make too many assumptions and have too many variables. Models are almost predetermined to fail. I assume they will. I just start counting assumptions.
while the decay of radon-222 exhibits large 4% peak-to-peak seasonal variations,[31] proposed to be related to either solar flare activity or distance from the Sun. However, such measurements are highly susceptible to systematic errors, and a subsequent paper[32] has found no evidence for such correlations in seven other isotopesWikipedia article on radioactive decay
We don’t know that much. That much I know.
Whispers Sister: In principal, God can do anything HESHE wants. By violating His principal of truthfulness, He could have created an apparently old Earth. If God is not truthful, then why trust Him?
Sorry about the delay.
Is that not the point of the entire article? HIS principals of Truthfulness and our corruption. Us trying to limit HIM and fit HIM into our understanding? Is it HIS Truthfulness or ours then?
Hebrews 1:
9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.
Were we not suppose to be in Eden forever, with HIM? Until we changed that? Did HE not curse even the ground, for our sake? Do we trust HIM because of HIS promise and that we know HE will remain? While everything else waxes old and changes, until HE really changes them? For us?
As I stated above, these are only presented opinions of others. I just like the outcome in unity better than the alternative. The world is old and created in 6 days. Everyone is right.
Did HE not know all of this at creation? Is Psalms 102:25 the reflection of the old foundation?
Otherwise the views in HIS creation might be described in Isaiah 44:25 “That frustrateth the tokens of the liars, and maketh diviners mad; that turneth wise men backward, and maketh their knowledge foolish;”? Just thoughts.
I am wondering if Dr Taylor could inform us more specifically When, Where, How and by Whom, was Dr J H Kellogg “excommunicated”?
My overall impression of this series?
Dr Taylor is weaving his own fabric of Adventist history. His particular blend of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) is long on rumors and opinions and allegations and suppositions while supplying very little supporting concrete evidence.
All in all, this is an attempt to substitute his own mythology as a replacement for prior mythologies that he eschews.
Junk Science, Junk History, Junk Theology. Mythologies are woven from a few facts and a lot of suppositions and superstitions.
Jim,
I am always attracted to reading your comments as I find your comments the result of very comprehensive thinking that is informed by a wide range of life experience, with rare exception.
Your comment here is one of those exceptions.
You may not agree with Dr. Taylor’s thesis that medical education came to introduce challenges to the so-called ‘literal reading’ of Genesis and the undeniably vivid unwillingness by many to reread Genesis today. You have not made that point here, though.
Rather, this comment dismisses Dr. Taylor personally as opportunistic with his selection of, your words, ‘rumors and opinions and allegations and suppositions while supplying very little supporting concrete evidence.’ This is as close to a pure example of add homonym as finds it way into Adventist Today comments.
The new commenting system being rolled out on this site will give the community of which we are all welcomed members the opportunity to rate our comments as to whether they are ‘good’ and whether they are ‘civil.’
Ad homonym is not civil. This comment is an example of a good comment that is not civil. It is good in that it uses a well-crafted and well-articulated character attack that may well raise cheers from readers who disagree with Dr. Taylor’s view of the world and who find comfort in Dr. Taylor’s supposed character defects.
You are civil and good almost always, Jim. Plenty of far worse cases elsewhere, and your’s was surprisingly handy.
Well I contend that introducing Dr Kellogg into discourse about the age of the earth or of life on earth is a total red herring, unless someone can offer evidence that Kellogg believed or taught differently than the church leaders of his time, regarding this question. In my own studies of the disputes between Kellogg and various church authority figures, never once have I encountered a claim that the age of the earth was part of the dispute.
It is for the person who is advancing these and other claims about SDA history, to offer supporting evidence, citations, etc. So far I fail to find this anywhere in this series of articles. Broad claims, a different spin on church history, no supporting evidence.
Too much debate in both religion and politics is based upon mythology. I do not agree that my challenge to the author is an ad hominem attack. It is I submit a fair assessment of this series.
If I might use a different analogy, the Scythe and the Scalpel have different purposes. If the intent of this series is to mow-down any and every aspect of Adventist history and identity that comes within reach, then the Scythe is the appropriate tool. If on the other hand, the purpose is to shed light on the question of the age of the earth, or of life on earth, a Scalpel might be a more appropriate tool to minimize “collateral damage”.
(continued)
While I do not claim to be able to prove how old is the earth or life hereon, I believe there is an enormous amount of evidence that these ages are much longer than I was taught as a child by SDA preachers and teachers. Where I differ strongly with some others who write on this web site, is that I believe clear and concise and focused presentations on these specific questions (the Scalpel) are more productive than broad polemic attacks on any people past and present, who happen to hold a different view (the Scythe).
And I do find it a bit ironic that some have labeled my assessment this series as an “ad hominem” attack on the author. Arguably, the series itself is a collection “ad hominem” attacks on various Bible and Adventist persons and writings. Long on criticism and short on substance in my persoanl opinion.
Jim, regarding your question:
“Pray tell me where I wrote anything about the character of Dr Taylor?”
Dr. Taylor writes as an academic researcher employed by the University of California and other noted universities. It is from this personal context that he contributes articles to and as a member of the Adventist Today community.
Your comment in full:
“My overall impression of this series?
Dr Taylor is weaving his own fabric of Adventist history. His particular blend of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) is long on rumors and opinions and allegations and suppositions while supplying very little supporting concrete evidence.
All in all, this is an attempt to substitute his own mythology as a replacement for prior mythologies that he eschews.
Junk Science, Junk History, Junk Theology. Mythologies are woven from a few facts and a lot of suppositions and superstitions.”
Now, Jim, where in your comment here did you stop inferring an utter lack of honesty in Dr. Taylor’s character when attempting to bring historical context to the YEC issue in Seventh-day Adventism today?
You much more typically remind us of the ideal way to criticize either moral or scientific points: https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapoport-rules-criticism/
Of course, the new system would have posted your comment. It is set to require flagrant rather than just acute lack of civility before the community will impose some kind of posting limits.
Bill wrote:
“It is good in that it uses a well-crafted and well-articulated character attack”
Pray tell me where I wrote anything about the character of Dr Taylor?
I agree that I attacked the series of articles. I do not believe I wrote, nor did I intend to write, anything about his character, only about the deficiencies I perceived in what was published.
Jim, what Erv wrote about the necessity of pre-med education be fully accredited before granting You You wrote earlier:
Dr Taylor is weaving his own fabric of Adventist history. His particular blend of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) is long on rumors and opinions and allegations and suppositions while supplying very little supporting concrete evidence.
That is NOT mythology. (Why can’t we edit from the beginning of our comments?)
LLUMC status as a medical school, is absolutely accurate. My late husband, LLUMC class of ’54, along with all the students were told this true background in order to fully appreciate the unique school they were attending.
This, of course, made the teaching of earth beginnings based on the Bible would not qualify as the required biology needed for admission to the medical school. Their teaching had to be grounded in the scientific study and its observations. In schools today, often high school students study biology and anatomy by dissecting animals and by the time medical students begin studying anatomy they have a human body.
I fail to see any connection between medical education and the age of the earth. In order to understand human anatomy and physiology, how to diagnose and treat various diseases, etc, a physician or medical researcher would need to understand how various physical, chemical, biological and environmental processes operate and interact. What, pray tell me, do these subjects require about how old is the earth? Whether the earth is 10,000 or 10,000,000 or 10,000,000,000 years old has no obvious effect on the present practice of medicine or its scientific underpinnings.
Elaine wrote:
“This, of course, made the teaching of earth beginnings based on the Bible would not qualify as the required biology needed for admission to the medical school.”
This is nonsense. Suppose for sake of argument, that the world was actually fabricated a hundred or a thousand or a million years ago, with all of its present life forms functioning as they do today. Then the accreditation process as you have cast it, would require that every school teach a lie. The fact that the accreditation process (in your estimation) can or should require the teaching of particular dogma, does not render that dogma as fact. It would only manifest the folly of an accreditation process that had morphed from setting academic standards to dictating content of instruction.
Suppose that I did not descend from the grasshopper, pheasant, frog, cat or pig whose bodies I have personally dissected in whole or in part at various times (nor from some common ancestor)? Could I still not learn and later teach to my own children (as I have), how the common functions they share with humans, operate are constructed?
While I am looking up the answers to Mr. Hamstra’s questions about the when, where, how and by whom the disfellowshipping / excommunication of Dr. Kellogg was accomplished, might I ask what Adventist history books he has read recently or ever?
He was “disfellowshipped” by voice vote at a congregational meeting attended by about 300 members of the Battle Creek Tabernacle, on 10 November 1907.
He was never “excommunicated”.
He remained in close contact with the local Adventist community for the remainder of his life.
The pastor of the Battle Creek Tabernacles and other Adventist dignitaries officiated at his funeral.
I will offer among my sources, people I personally knew in Michigan who before my time personally knew Dr Kellogg.
Mr. Hamstra has correctly summarized the basic set of events associated with the disfellowshipping/excommunication of Dr. Kellogg that can be read in published historical accounts of that period.
May I ask Mr. Hamstra to please provide his definitions of being “disfellowshipped” and being “excommunicated” and the difference between them, from his perspective. They are the same thing called by different terms in different religious traditions. However, he seems to object to the use of “excommunication” to refer how someone is excluded from fellowship within the Adventist Church? Is that correct? If so, why is that?
Erv,
A disfellowshipped Adventist can still take communion because the Seventh-day Adventist Church practices open communion. The excommunicated can not partake of the Eucharist (the body and blood of our Lord). The center of Catholic worship and fellowship is the communion. The focus of the Seventh-day Adventist’s is evangelism and the Sabbath.
Excommunication is simply not the best word to describe what happens when a member’s name is removed from a Seventh-day Adventist’s church’s books.
William has correctly stated the matter as far as he goes. However the distinction goes much further. In a sacramental (eg RC) theology of grace, grace is “communicated” through the Church as the vehicle by which the sacraments are dispensed to the faithful. Excommunication then means that one is denied access to all of the sacraments of the Church, and ergo, one is eternally lost.
In a church that teaches that Jesus Christ administers His grace directly to humans, the Church is not a mediator of God’s grace. There fore being “disfellowshipped” means that a former meber no longer enjoys the privileges of membership (eg voice and vote in church business, holding church offices or exercising church responsibilities, etc). However “disfellowshipping” says absolutely nothing about one’s standing with God because the latter is not mediated by the Church.
Furthermore, “disfelloshipping” does not mean the the former member is “shunned”. Dr Kellogg continued to freely associate with Adventist members throughout the remainder of his life. This was told to me by someone who actually knew him. I may provide more background regarding my sources in another reply.
Jim,
That is better, more complete, explanation of the difference. Thanks
I thank Mr. Abbott and Mr. Hamstra for their perspectives on the distinctions between disfellowshipping and excommunication. Their points are well taken. However, in light of their comments about Dr. Kellogg, I need to review some more biographical information on him. He was a complex figure and those who have done a lot of research on him suggest that there are things about his relationship with the Adventist church in his later years that need additional unpacking to figure out what actually was going on.
Jim, you come across as guarding some metaphysical presuppositions that Erv has challenged. Otherwise why do you castigate him and his methodology? Why not just reveal his errors?
I am not castigating Dr Taylor. I am castigating the methodology of this particular series of articles which casts a broad swath of assertions and allegations while offering a paucity of support.
“Trust me, I have studied this” or “everybody knows” or “the experts agree” was not terribly convincing to me even in my grade school days. Nor is it now. When I study a book, I tend to spend more time reading the footnotes than the text, to try to understand how the author(s) arrived at his/her/their conclusions.
The decades I have spent carefully examining the “traditionalist” Adventist mythology have conditioned me to spot fallacies in the “revisionist” mythology.
I am NOT claiming that everything written in this series is erroneous. I AM requesting that the author identify the sources upon which he bases his claims.
OK, Jim, well and good. You say: “The decades I have spent carefully examining the “traditionalist” Adventist mythology have conditioned me to spot fallacies in the “revisionist” mythology.” I trust your statement. But I would like to know the disparity you have determined. I’m not trying the contrarian role, but I’m not schooled on what you know. Please share!
Bugs-Larry,
A fair question which deserves a fair answer. However time and space limitations do not permit an adequate answer here.
Let me just briefly remark that by 1907 the tug-of-war between Dr Kellogg and the dominant faction in the SDA/GC hierarchy had degenerated into a he said/she said argument of claims and counter-claims. There is some evidence that Ellen attempted to encourage these gentlemen to try to settle some of their differences, but things had gone well beyond the point of no-return on both sides.
Let me also comment that there were moves and counter-moves between the GC crowd and the Kellogg brothers after 1907. Eventually their opponents exploited a rift between the brothers K, to wrest control of the remains of the Sanitarium edifice away from John Harvey. It was a rather ugly business all the way around and I have no desire to take sides a century later.
The “blame-Willy” stance that Dr Taylor seems to be taking in this article is the stance that Dr Kellogg took for the record in 1907. Wherefore and Why Dr Talyor follows this line I do not know, nor are we likely to know.
Anyway, I still maintain that this is a red herring in debating the age of the earth. Therefore I see no reason to further pursue this line of enquiry on this web page.
Nuff said?
Yep!
Nathan, I am sorry for the tardiness of this reply; but I am not everyday on this forum. You do not agree that “we need a more sensible concept of God” You think we need a more Biblical experiencial relationship with God. I am not sure what you mean by a “Biblical experiencial relationship”; but note that I pointed out that the Bible itself assists us in having a less lofty concept of God. It is clear to me that some of the Bible writers did not understand a lot about God; and they lay all kinds of inconsistencies and otrocities to His account, leading lots of people to have a very low concept of God.
You give me the impression that the concept these writers have of God is the correct one, when you refer to the information they give as: “God…manifests Himself”, and “His self-revelation. If these writers believe certain things about God, it does not follow that they are correct. They may be mistaken, and we do not have to believe what they try to teach us, if it does not make sense.
We have the truth that God sends rain on both the just and the unjust; and that He does not delight in the death of the wicked, but wants them to turn from their wicked ways; and that He sent His Servant, Jesus to seek and save the lost; and that He loves all His people; why must we believe that He would order the execution of whole nations, and keep wicked people burning in hell forever?
You said,”The God that I find in Scripture usually manifests Himself as anyNathing but…
continued) You said, “The God that I find in Scripture usually manifests Himself as anything but sensible – from the garden onward”. I did not write about a “sensible God”. I wrote about a sensible “concept of God”. Perhaps “sensible” is not the most appropriate word to use; but I use that word in contrast to the senseless ideas and concepts many have of God. I repeat a subsequent statement which may give a clearer idea of the thought I had in mind: “The limited experience we have had with God over the ages we have been dealing with Him, deserve a higher regard for, and a more lofty concept of Him”.
Nathaniel, I understand and accept the distinction you make between a sensible God and a sensible concept of God. My apologies for misunderstanding you. I very much agree that one’s world view is critical to navigating both scripture and life. A sensible concept of God, understood to mean a Biblical world view, frees one from rigid adherence to mindless literalism, while at the same time keeping one’s life rooted in scripture as sacred text that must be taken seriously as God’s communication of Himself through divine-human interactions.
Jim, you ask …
“Pray tell me where I wrote anything about the character of Dr Taylor?”
Dr. Taylor has earned academic appointments with the University of California and other noted universities and is a respected academic researcher, the position from which he contributes to and as part of the Adventist Today community.
Your post in its entirety:
“My overall impression of this series?
Dr Taylor is weaving his own fabric of Adventist history. His particular blend of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) is long on rumors and opinions and allegations and suppositions while supplying very little supporting concrete evidence.
All in all, this is an attempt to substitute his own mythology as a replacement for prior mythologies that he eschews.
Junk Science, Junk History, Junk Theology. Mythologies are woven from a few facts and a lot of suppositions and superstitions.”
In answer to your question, Jim, where in this post did you stop denigrating Dr. Taylor personally for lack of integrity in attempting to bring historical context to bear on the issue of YEC within Seventh-day Adventism today?
You typically criticize with much more kindness. You remind me of: https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapoport-rules-criticism/
Oh, and the new system would have posted this, even if the community found this uncivil. Flagrant repetition is required for the community to bring any limits to any one’s posting.
Carry on, Jim.
Perhaps I should have written that this series seems to be attempting to put forth a different “mythology” as a substitute for the “traditionalist mythology”? Would that seem less aof a personal attack?
By “mythology” I do not imply that some or even much of what is conveyed is untrue. The most engaging mythology is generally a mixture of truth and values judgments and unsubstantiated claims. The author makes no attempt to offer supporting evidence for these claims. In this regard it is not that dissimilar approach from many Sabbath sermons I have heard in some churches.
I do not deny the author’s academic qualifications in the field of Carbon-based dating. I am wondering what are his sources regarding church history in general, and Adventist history in particular? Does he have another graduate diploma or academic distinction that I do not know of?
There is archaeological evidence that the Trojan Wars actually occurred. Nevertheless having ready the Odyssey I view it as mythology because Homer tells a lot of masterful stories while offering me no basis to discriminate between the portions which are fact and those which are fancy rhetoric.
Myths are neither all false or all true, but often a mixture. Myths are the method that relays stories that are important to the culture. Myths are a powerful source of religious beliefs, and all religions have their own myths.
Bill,
If Jim were accusing Erv of being deceitful or duplicitous, if he were saying Erv is lying or is a liar, then he would be impinging Prof. Taylor’s integrity. I haven’t got any of that from Jim’s posts on this thread.
Jim is of the opinion Erv’s ideas are ‘balderdash’ to use one of Erv’s own terms. Jim is trashing the truthfulness of Erv’s ideas, not Erv’s truthfulness.
Just my take on it.
No, William, I am not saying “balderdash”. In fact I believe some percentage of this narrative is factual. But there are other portions of the narrative that based upon my own prior investigations, I consider to be demonstrably erroneous. Not to mention that a fair portion seems to me to be a rather (unabashedly?) biased choice of which facts to present, and which conclusion to draw.
And I stand by my claim that the author offers no basis for discriminating between the stated opinions and the supporting facts, because the series so far has been notably lacking in offering supporting evidence for the opinions and conclusions.
We can debate the issue of Earth’s age until the cows come home and doubt there will be a result
that will be accurate and infallible. Genesis does not give sufficient information that can be substantially, fully, revealed, with out doubt. Perhaps Moses wrote a metaphor that the people could grasp with their limited knowledge. 1 2 3 4 5 6 evenings and mornings. Remember this all happened many years before Moses was born. It was handed down, by word of mouth, through many generations, before being written down. God is eternal, Earth time is not a value it seems to God, as He is timeless.
I have carefully reread Erv’s Commentary after seeing Hamstra’s critique, and I have to say that I think, Jim, that you are unduly harsh. I agree that the paragraphs about Kellogg were an unhelpful digression. Kellogg was an important chapter in Adventism, though hardly a defining one.
I think Erv is giving helpful background, and certainly it is interesting to explore the path to the change in FB 6. It strikes me that Erv imitates the object of his study by trying to create an explanatory causal interlinking chain of events that is a bit unwieldy. But this is what happens when any person or group tries to fit reality into their own ideological biases and assumptions.
The Flexner report and its impact on medical
Education throughout the Country was far
More impactful on Adventist education than Kellogg. Ellen White counseled that medical school applicants and graduates should be prepared to pass the most rigorous examinations necessary to satisfy licensing and accreditation standards. The notion that an embrace of evolutionary biology or deep time has ever been necessary for a terrific medical education or accreditation, however, strikes me as highly dubious. Loma Linda has for decades been graduating brilliant, world class physicians who believe in YLC. The difference today is that SDA science professors used to teach evolutionary theory as theory. Recently it is being taught as fact. Why? Cont. below
Why does one have to believe something as an article of faith in order to be able to impart knowledge and understanding about the subject matter? One need not believe in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming in order to have a PhD level understanding of the science, arguments and counter-arguments.
The problem, as I see it, is not that the Church has embraced Creationism. The problem lies in its insistence that it’s belief is not primarily a matter of faith, but is really a sort of naturalism that be faith assumes its beliefs can and will be objectively validated. It is the mirror image of neodarwinistic faith. Such insistence will lead, and is leading, to the unraveling of revealed, experiential faith as the foundation for our understanding of who God is and who we are.
Pope Benedict observed that while God is not always rational, He must appear as reasonable. If the Church demands that its members – especially educated ones – accept, as a matter of fact -not faith – that which is neither rational not reasonable, and further insist that such acceptance is a test of faith, it will have great difficulty attracting honest, intelligent, committed scholars.
“Pope Benedict observed that while God is not always rational, He must appear as reasonable.”
Nathan, could it be Pope Benedict observed himself in a mirror, and not God, when he came to that conclusion?
False choice, DD. Yes, he saw himself. How could it be otherwise? But that doesn’t mean he didn’t also see God in the projection. Don’t we all need to humbly acknowledge that our understandings of God are, to varying degrees, self-projections. The heart and mind of informed faith nevertheless contends that there is a transcendent, relational Being that we can see and know, however imperfectly, if we gaze intently beyond the image of ourselves, to find and be found by God, and to understand His ways.
And yes, Larry, honesty compels me to confess that I did notice your post. But I swear it was an accident. I didn’t mean to.???? But hey, if you’re going to agree with me, maybe I’ll experience more accidents. Sometimes it’s fun to look at yourself even in a carnival mirror. ????
“…if we gaze intently beyond the image of ourselves, to find and be found by God, and to understand His ways.”
Nathan, I like the way you put that. Here is another way God appears to us humans according to our personal spirituality and understanding of God:
“25 With the merciful You will show Yourself merciful; with a blameless man You will show Yourself blameless; 26 with the pure You will show Yourself pure; and with the devious You will show Yourself shrewd. 27 For You will save the humble people, but will bring down haughty looks.” Ps. 18:25-27.
Psalms 82: 5-7
They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course. I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
Nathan’s comment: “But that doesn’t mean he didn’t also see God in the projection.”
Starting with Jesus Christ and extending to ‘the least of these His brethren’ we ought to see Divinity in Humanity; even in ourselves. Our service to others ought to be given as though we were serving God Himself.
“Gazing beyond ourselves” is the only way to get a proper look at ourselves. To see ourselves reflected in His image.
Nathan, looking at myself in a carnival mirror improves my looks since when I see myself in a regular one I don’t like the looks of that old guy peering back at me!
And honesty is good for the soul, so I hear. May try it myself someday! Might make me look better in a regular mirror!
Great last paragraph, Nathan! Sorry you won’t know I agree with you since you ignore me. Maybe someone will sneak it to you!
I would like to thank Nathan Schilt for his thoughtful response to my series of comments. It is certainly possible that my assessment of this series has been too harsh. However I submit that the series itself is arguably too harsh both regarding the Bible and regarding the founders of the SDA church. Absent supporting evidence, this to me is no more convincing than a sermon regarding how Pope Francis and his Jesuit minions, or the Muslims, or the Jewish bankers, or [insert favorite villains here] are out to destroy everything that is true and faithful and just. And consequently it will tend to reinforce the views on both sides of this debate rather than promote enlightening dialogue.
For example, as your comments and many others show, rather than clarifying that belief in Divine Creation does not necessarily require one to subscribe to Bishop Ussher’s chronology, these issues are once again being conflated.
Some prefer the Scythe – others the Scalpel. Which tool is appropriate depends upon how one perceives the task at hand.
Is it a strong possibility that man finds it impossible to look beyond himself?? Because looking in a mirror he sees only himself. Attempting to investigate the Kellogg times/ and the church, with the actual reality of the various individuals participating, and competing for power, the hearts of man are exceedingly selfish. God’s reputation of being a tyrant warrior for giving instructions for annihilating whole nations of people, nuclear bombing Sodom and Gomorrah, and drowning the
masses, except Noah’s family, does not understand the extreme ungodly nature of the the Earth’s inhabitants of that time. With the continual intrusion of Satan, and the amalgamation of evil angels
cohabiting with Earth’s women, produced tribes of totally corrupt creatures. These were destroyed.
We must remember that the portion of GOD AND LOVE, was Jesus the Christ. It was Jesus that gave the order to destroy the evil Earth, but saved Noah’s family, the remnant, to re-people the Earth, so His Earthly creation would not have been a complete terrible disaster. It was Jesus, our Lord and Savior, the author and finisher of our FAITH, Our heavenly Father of LOVE, WHO RULES. And we think we understand His totality??
“It was Jesus, our Lord and Savior, the author and finisher of our FAITH, Our heavenly Father of LOVE, WHO RULES. And we think we understand His totality??”
We think we understand God because we “interpret” the Scriptures through carnal minds and do not submit our hearts to Him; so that we should learn from Him. Jesus the Christ is the Head of His people and the Creator of all things–why look to man (the clay pots) for our understanding of the Almighty God?