Death Inside and Outside Eden and Death Inside and Outside the New Jerusalem?
by Jack Hoehn
Sabbath School ORIGINS # 12 suggests that Death before Adam’s fall is the deal breaker for accepting any other form of Creation than one done briefly (in 6 literal days) and recently (a few thousand years ago). Even though everything we know about our universe suggests earth, sun, moon, and stars were created billions of years ago!
For example, this week in March 2013 at sundown if you look towards the setting sun you may be lucky enough to see just after sundown a comet PANSTARRS; if you miss it this week, it will take 106,000 years before you see it again. Most of us accept that things like this seem to be true. Astronomers find comets come from the Oort-cloud of particles left over beyond Pluto from the creation of our solar system about 4.6 Bya (which could give us an approximate starting date for the true chronology of Creation Day 1?).
We Can’t Create Life
The lesson emphasizes that we know how to kill things, but we don’t know how to make things alive, which is very true no matter what chronology of creation you think best fits the facts. Again the controversy within Adventism is constantly confused with the controversy between atheist evolutionists and Bible believing creationists who cannot accept the chronology of the Young Earth Creation model. The constantly repeated error (I am tempted to use the word “lie” but I think it still is an error made with good intentions but faulty theology) is that if you don’t accept that earth and everything in it was made very quickly and very recently, you have joined the infidel atheist camp!
Creationists of all types agree that life had to have been created by God. We don’t claim that life even over billions of years could have happened by itself, by accident, by chance, by purely natural self-directed chemical events or folding of proteins. Creationist evolutionists may believe that God remains in the shadows, behind life but sort of hands-off. Intelligent Design progressive creationists (Old Earth Creationists) think God was directly involved in directing His creation at every step, but that these steps were over ages, and not done recently in 144 hours.
What the Bible Does NOT Say
Romans 5:6 does NOT say, “You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the plants and animals.” [It says Christ died for humans.]
1 Corinthians 15:22 does NOT say, “For as in Adam all plants and animals began to die, so in Christ all plants and animals stop dying.” [ It says human death was solved by Christ’s death.]
2 Corinthians 5:17 does NOT say, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come. The old has gone, the new is here! And it takes about 1 week for all this to happen just like the first creation, so hurry up and get with it folks!” [Most of us have found that the New Creation is a slow and progressive creation over much longer than one literal week, not an instantaneous one by any means.]
Death Inside and Outside of Eden
There was no Tree of Life created during any of God’s Creation Days until he planted a garden in Eden. There was darkness, there was no firmament, there was no land, there were no plants, there was no visible stars, sun, moon, birds, fish, animals of any kind; it was a very imperfect, incomplete earth before God intervened. God the Creator fixed all these problems and it was a very good earth, but what that good earth was like, if it was like the earth we now have (which I think is still good although imperfect) or if it was a Disneyland earth of perfection is a matter of debate. He created life but Genesis has no record of an anti-death mechanism created until, in Genesis 2, He puts a Tree of Life into the Garden. Plant death of course was God’s plan inside and outside of Eden from the beginning. (Genesis 1:29, 30).
Animal death before the fall outside or inside of Eden is not as immediately obvious in Genesis, but Satan seems permitted to have power over the beautiful reptiles before the fall. And since humans were created mortal (Adventism is clear on this) why would Adventists think that animals were created immortal? So I maintain that animal and plant death was part of the pre-Eve/Adam fall world inside and outside of Eden, except for the creature or creatures with access to the tree of life. The reason for this is not that God wanted death in the animal and plant kingdom, but because Earth was the venue for the Great Controversy with Christ and Satan.
Death Inside and Outside of the New Jerusalem
Will there be any death in the New Jerusalem? Well of course there will be the second death. Revelation 21:8. “ But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”
But Revelation 21:4 promises, “There will be no more death.” Whether this means there will be no more human death, or no more plant and animal death is not specified. It is wonderful that there is at Tree of Life in the New Jerusalem (Revelation 22:2). But why do humans need a Tree of Life if there is no more death? Why do we still need the antidote if there is no poison?
As Eden was a special place, different from the created world outside of Eden, so the New Jerusalem coming down from God out of Heaven appears to be a special place on this earth, at least at the beginning of eternity. Ellen White presents the New Jerusalem as a walled city surrounded by the resurrected hosts of the lost and fallen angels.
During the millennium Isaiah 34 suggests there will be vultures and owls, ravens, jackals, and hyenas—all scavengers and carnivores on the desolated earth suggesting at least animal death on earth. Earth after the millennium when the New Jerusalem returns to earth is still a battlefield of Christ with Satan and their competing philosophies of life. Revelation 22:15 agrees, “Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.” So even in the future, even with the New Jerusalem earth remains a place with death (murderers) outside of Eden restored for some period of time. Isaiah 66:22-24 hopefully are temporary and symbolic? At least until, as Adventists believe, all outside the New Jerusalem will be purified with cleansing fire.
What does this mean?
I’m not trying to create a new Adventist eschatology. I’m just showing that within our existing Adventist eschatology there seems to be a time when Eden restored is like the first Eden, a safe and holy place on a planet that was and will remain for some time into the future a battlefield between good and evil, between Love and Selfishness, between Christ and Satan. To demand that there be no plant and animal death on earth before the fall of mankind is a false requirement not required by the Bible.
I have previously blogged on why, according to C.S. Lewis, animal and plant death would exist in a good God’s world of freedom and choice before the fall of man, and why God would want to protect his newly created children in a special safe Eden with a Tree of Life from an outer world in conflict with danger and death.
“Wages of Sin as death can apply to angelic fall and rebellion long before the creation of man.
a.) Death as the result of sin could result from Satan’s fall long before Adam’s fall. As C.S. Lewis writes, “The origin of animal suffering could be traced, by earlier generations, to the Fall of man—the whole world was infected by the un-creating rebellion of Adam. This is now impossible, for we have good reason to believe that…Carnivorousness, with all that it entails, is older than humanity…It seems to be, therefore, a reasonable supposition, that some mighty created power had already been at work for ill on the material universe, or the solar system, or at least, the planet Earth, before ever man came on the scene… If there is such a power, as I myself believe, it may well have corrupted the animal creation before man appeared…some animals live by destroying each other.” (CS Lewis, Problem of Pain, pages 133-135.)
b.) Romans 5:12 clearly speaks of human death, not animal death, and Paul’s argument loses nothing if we believe that animal and plant death existed before the human fall.
c.) Romans 8:18-24 “the groaning of creation” is surely true, but gives no indication when that groaning started, likely from Satan’s fall and banishment to earth, and then from Adam’s fall, and then from Noah’s Flood, and now again from environmental exploitation.
The Great Controversy pre-existed the creation events. There were “sinners” on earth long before Adam and Eve were created. A sinful Satan and sinning angelic host cast to the earth before the creation might imply that the creation events themselves may have been happening on a battle field.
If each of creation’s Days were accomplished in disputed territory, where God’s ways and God’s laws were being actively opposed by Satan’s ways and Satan’s philosophy, might this not explain why the geologic record of life on earth appears to be one of repeated conflict?
Dear Fellow Adventist
You were born into a wonderful world that existed long before you or anyone you know was born. This world you know shows both the goodness of God and the badness of Satan. Your life has been a balance between the wonderful good and the terrible evil. In spite of this you have seen that God is good, and have put your confidence in Him and the hoped-for return of His Son.
Does it really destroy all your hopes and strengthen all your fears, if God has created over a longer period than 144 hours?
Does it really steal from you your confidence in God and the Bible if humankind in the image of God was created 6,000 years ago or 60,000 years ago?
Will you really give up Sabbath observance if God didn’t create everything in 6 literal days, but instead in 6 Heavenly Days of unknown length?
“In the Beginning God created the heavens and the earth” remains true no matter what kind of Creation chronology you support. As Sister White reminds, “Just how God accomplished the work of creation he has never revealed to men.” (PP113) (I do wish she had also said, Just when God accomplished the work of creation he has also not revealed to men!) But I am not asking you to accept YEC/OEC/ or the secular chronology of life on earth. I am asking that IF you were convinced that in fact God had done things a different way or with a different chronology than you now believe, would that cause you to give up on God in disgust?
I don’t think so! I have confidence that your faith in God is not, as Satan slandered Job, “Disappoint Job and Job will curse you!” I think many sincere Adventists I know might be disappointed if the true history of Creation is longer than they used to think. But most would choose to stick with God even if He created in a different way than they used to think. Like Job, they may sit for a while and mourn the loss of their simple but inadequate beliefs, but eventually they will testify to Satan and the world, “Though He slay me, yet will I trust in Him.” I trust Him as my Creator, no matter how and when He chooses to create.
Great as always Jack. I think I read this again a few times because there is a lot of interesting stuff in here.
Mr. Ferguson's search for how the reconcile traditional Adventist young life creationism with well established scientific evidence dealing with how long plants and animals have existed on earth should be welcommed by anyone who is serious about the future of Adventism in the First World and among scientitically literate individuals..
Thinking "outside the box" that is conventiional Adventism is a difficult enterprise because of the view that every element of classical Adventist theology is interlinked with every other element. Remove any one theological tenet and there is the fear that the whole system will come down.
I'm not sure that we aill agree with every part of Mr. Ferguson's model of how to deal with what appears to be the incompatibility of classical Adventism and much of contempoary science dealing with human and earth history.but he is going in a very positive direction.
I hope he continues to share with us his ideas of how to move forward, particularly if the Adventist right wing is successful at the 2015 GC Session of imposing fundamentlist language on FB #6..
One of the main challenges in Adventism is being able to think "outside the boox"
(yes, the "boox").
Jack,
I have copied this to finish reading later.
An interesting blog, but I am still not convinced. I do think there was a former creation before Adam and Eve on this planet–that seems the only alternative to the fossils. But since we can't know for sure, it does little good to speculate other than for curiosity. I can't believe anything that conflicts with Christ's death on the cross for our sins and the character of a loving, caring God–even for animals. You seem to be saying they don't really count in this conflict. They are innocent bystanders like the infants that die before adulthood.
Ella, thank you for your reaction, I appreciate your ideas and questions. One of the new ideas I am getting from these explorations of how God created and when, is that God uses even death in His service. Hebrews 2:14 reminds me that God uses death to destroy death! It appears he also used plant and animal death to bless us with gasoline and coal that as Ellen White writes, "minister to our comfort and convenience today." (Ed p. 129). And we all know that eternal life in sin cursed world would be a punishment, and that our first death is in fact a great mercy.
Think I'll stick with "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day" (Exodus 20:11). Can it be any more simple or clear?
I also believe God created the world in six days – that much is very clear from the Bible. However, what is not clear is how long a 'day' is. Is it a 'human day' of 24 hours or a 'God day', which the Bible itself attests seems to be a longer period of time? Peter says that to God a 1,000 years is like a day to God. Likewise, God said to Adam he would die in the same day he ate the fruit, and yet Adam lived 930 years (much longer than a human-day but just shy of a God-day).
I don't pretend to know the answer either way. But I am open to accepting there is more to the story than we usually think.
Kenneth, yes, the reason for the weekly Sabbath as a memorial of creation is simple. God made everything in His 6 Days.
But what happened duringGod's 6 Creation Days is not simple, and when and how long those God Days were is really not very clear. (That is why some in our church have an urge to make it clear by rewriting the Adventist creation doctrine. They wish to make it simpler and clearer than the Bible actually does.)
You and I know that the Universe is not simple. Our solar system is not simple. Life on earth is not simple. The smallest cell on earth is not simple. All are complex.
God is not simple. So demanding that our complex God create His complex universe and complex life on this complex and fascinating planet, is clearly too simple to suffice beyond the childhood of our belief.
Sure we can simplify it. But that does not mean creation is actually simple. Nothing living is simple, so unless we want a dead Sabbath, and a thought killing understanding of creation, we should be willing to welcome complexity, depth, wisdom, knowledge to support our simple faith.
The emphasys of the Bible is not what it does not say but what it says, Jesus is recorded as saying what do you read? what does it say? so I prefer to concentrate on what it says, there are a million things that the Bible does not speak about and I do not want to waste precious time on them.
Trying to understand the beginnings without a recorded film, pictures, nor a witness, makes it very, very difficult ( i am tempted to say impossible) to grasp. It is like a Taurus and a Fusion thinking that they can understand Henry Ford, impossible; not matter how intelligent and advance they could be.
We do not have any other option, let me say, I do not have any other option, the Bible or what the Taurus and Fusion are saying. Since I do not think that Taurus and Fusion had the tools to explain it, I prefer to rely on the simple lecture of the Bible ( I am so glad the God did not require us to get a doctorate to understand it)
Jack, I understand what you're saying, but my dilemma is writings such as the following statement in Christian Education, chapter 24, titled "The Literal Week" (p.190-1):
Like the Sabbath, the week originated at creation, and it has been preserved and brought down to us through Bible history. God himself measured off the first week as a sample for successive weeks to the close of time. Like every other, it consisted of seven literal days. Six days were employed in the work of creation; upon the seventh, God rested, and he then blessed this day, and set it apart as a day of rest for man.
In the law given from Sinai, God recognized the week, and the facts upon which it is based. After giving the command, “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy,” and specifying what shall be done on the six days, and what shall not be done on the seventh, he states the reason for thus observing the week, by pointing back to his own example: “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.” [Exodus 20:8-11.] This reason appears beautiful and forcible when we understand the days of creation to be literal. The first six days of each week are given to man for labor, because God employed the same period of the first week in the work of creation. On the seventh day man is to refrain from labor, in commemoration of the Creator’s rest.
But the assumption that the events of the first week required thousands upon thousands of years, strikes directly at the foundation of the fourth commandment. It represents the Creator as commanding men to observe the week of literal days in commemoration of vast, indefinite periods. This is unlike his method of dealing with his creatures. It makes indefinite and obscure that which he has made very plain. It is infidelity in its most insidious and hence most dangerous form; its real character is so disguised that it is held and taught by many who profess to believe the Bible.
“By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.” “For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.” [Psalm 33:6, 9.] The Bible recognizes no long ages in which the earth was evolved from chaos. Of each successive day of creation, the sacred record declares that it consisted of the evening and the morning, like all other days that have followed. At the close of each day is given the result of the Creator’s work. The statement is made at the close of the first week’s record, “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created.” [Genesis 2:4.] But this does not convey the idea that the days of creation were other than literal days. Each day was called a generation, because that in it God generated, or produced, some new portion of his work.
What do you do with statements such as these?
Kenneth, I accept the message from Sister White that things did not evolve by themselves, but I also see that her science was 19th century science that she used to clothe her message. For Example she states in Education page 129 that coal makes gasoline, which it does not. She states in Patriarchs and Prophets page 108 that these coal and oil deposits burn and melt rock causing volcanoes, which they do not do. What she was inspired (God Created, things didn't evolve by themselves) is true. How she trys to explain it to her 19th century audience was with the best science she knew. As she explains in the Introduction to the Great Controversy, the inspiration is expressed in human, fallible (error prone) language. Please reread my last blog again where I quote Dr. David Paulson's question and Sister White's answer to him. This will require an updated way of understanding inspired writings, but since it is Ellen White's way, we can trust it.
This article is pure rubbish! There was no death in the garden of Eden. If that were so, God would not have had to explain to Adam and Eve the consequences of eating of the forbidden fruit. They would have seen death all around them. EGW has said that when God (Jesus) created the earth, he did not rely on any pre-created matter. He spoke and it was. Why is that so hard to understand? I also believe that a 24 hour period at creation (evening and morning) is the same 24 hour period we observe today. Why is that so difficult to understand? Believe God at face value and stop trying to put your spin on creation. It only causes confusion, and I see it as the work of the devil. God has used many men and women of simple mind and faith to carry His tremendous truths to the world. It may do you well to leave your college degrees in the drawer when you open your Bible, and just accept a simple "Thus sayeth the Lord".
Yes, much of what I write may belong to the dustbin. But I am asking you to look not at your ideas of what the Bible says, but what it really says. Jesus told his disciples that he had many things to tell them, but they could not bear them at that time. But he promised that the Holy Spirit would continue to reveal new truths to them as time passed on. Don't quench the Spirits ability to work with us in 2013, would be my only request. The love of simplicity may itself be a vice, not a virtue. Please consider carefully Proverbs 9: Wisdom has built her house;
she has set upa its seven pillars.
2She has prepared her meat and mixed her wine;
she has also set her table.
3She has sent out her servants, and she calls
from the highest point of the city,
4“Let all who are simple come to my house!”
To those who have no sense she says,
5“Come, eat my food
and drink the wine I have mixed.
6Leave your simple ways and you will live;
walk in the way of insight.”
'This article is pure rubbish! There was no death in the garden of Eden.'
When Adam and Eve ate from all the various fruits trees and shrubs of the ground, didn't that result in the death of plants? Didn't plant cells die? So wasn't there death in the garden of Eden?
There are other supernatural events mentioned in the Bible, such as:
The act of Creation is only greater in magnitude than these events, but no more supernatural. I have no idea how God performs these miracles, but do I really need to know? Isn't it enough to take them at face value, comparing scripture with scripture? To have the faith of a little child? Rather than attempt to explain in human terms things that God has not revealed, and translate to my own understanding, which ignores the supernatural and makes things symbolic that from the context are not symbolic?
The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple (Psalms 19:7)
The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple (Psalms 119:130)
Old Earth Creationists are fully supernaturalists. We believe nature, science demands supernatural intelligent design to create the life we see on earth. We have no argument with your examples of supernatural involvement, and would add to them all the things in nature that require a Designer to make them happen. We only ask that you not restrict the Designer to your impossibly short chronology of when he did them. Just look at the evidence He has left and decide based on the evidence, not on a narrow theology needlessly fearful of the evidence.
Jack, you said that [EGW] "states in Education page 129 that coal makes gasoline, which it does not" and that, "her science was 19th century science that she used to clothe her message." Let me fill you in on some scientific fact as well as history. First off, she never mentioned gasoline anywhere in her writings (search for yourself at https://egwwritings.org). Here is the quote you are referring to:
"The vast forests buried in the earth at the time of the Flood, and since changed to coal, form the extensive coal fields, and yield the supplies of oil that minister to our comfort and convenience today" (Ed129).
To be fair, let's assume you meant petroleum not gasoline, and "oil" = petroleum. While the internal combustion engine was being developed by the early 1800s and experimental "gasolene" (petrol) automobiles were were being built by the end of the 19th century people still traveled predominantly by horse or steam locomotive. In fact, until 1905 "automobiles were seen as more of a novelty than a genuinely useful device" and it wasn't until 1907 that "high-wheel motor buggies" began to come into common use until they were "killed by the model T" which began in 1908. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_automobile).
So for all practical purposes, the oil EG White was talking about in Ed 129 (published in 1903) was most likely kerosene, which was used to light lamps.
And according to wikipedia (History_of_petroleum): "The process of refining kerosene from coal was discovered by Nova Scotian Abraham Pineo Gesner in 1846." In fact although it was discovered that kerosene could be extracted from crude oil in 1852, coal extraction was still quite common in areas where it was cheaper and more available.
Quoting you Jack, "We only ask that you not restrict the Designer to your impossibly short chronology." I beg your pardon? Exodus 20:11 is not my chronology. And aren't you limiting the Designer by saying that God does not have the power to create in 6 days?
Perhaps Moses was incorrect too when he wrote Genesis/Exodus, seeing that he did not have a PhD ("piled higher and deeper) in Geology? And perhaps you should restrict your chronology (Jack Hoehn's chronology) to the Scripture. God made it simple in Exodus 20:11, but you prefer a more complex version, that looks at Science first, and then forces the Scriptures to fit your understanding. Isn't that the order it goes?
The Bible merely says the world was created in six 'days' – no one is disputing that point. What we are discussing is whether a 'day' means a 'human-day' of 24 hours or a 'God-day' of a longer period. For example:
I don't pretend to know the answer to all these questions. However, I am willing to accept there is more to these issues than we may have first thought.
Stephen, you are saying it much better than this blog has ever said it. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Kenneth, we are not arguing over what God could do. We have no controversy over what God could have done. The impossibility is not what God could do, the impossibility is to believe based on the evidence God has left what he did. It is impossible to ignore the evidence for the age of the earth, unless you refuse to consider it because of your interpretation of YOM as 24 hours days. Then you are impossible to convince because you have decided it has to be 24 hour days. That is your interpretation, Moses did not say days, he said "yom", which as has been stated by many believing Bible students can mean other things than 24 hour days. If you choose to be inflexible on your Bible interpretation, if you decide that your translation of that word, is infallible, then you will reject the evidence.
But if you look at the evidence in nature or in archeology or in historical records of Egyptians or Chinese or in genetics or in nuclear chemistry and physics, or at the Bristlecone pines or the Hawaiian Islands, or the Greenland Icecap, etc, etc. etc. it is not possible to accept that earth and life in it is 6,000 years old, and that the Sun, moon, and stars were made 4 days into that cycle, so since the evidence is impossible to refute, I choose to understand that my Bible interpretation was wrong.
God is still able to do what he wants, including create over 14.8 Billion years, and inspire Moses to use the generic term "yom" (the Hebrew word which covers days of 12 hours, 24 hours, indefinite periods in the past , or ages).
Unless Ellen White hadn't said they were 24 hour days, you would not have much trouble seeing that they weren't. So the question comes, do you believe the evidence or do you believe a woderful but fallible prophetess, on a disputible interpretation of the Bible. Is she your greater light or your lesser light?
Ken, let's be respectful
God is Almighty. God is eternal. God is timeless. Man is a creature. Man is mortal. Man lives by time.
Earth's time history is debateable, because God has not revealed to man "WHEN" He created the Earth.
i believe the Genesis narrative is allegorical, just as many other parts of scripture is allegorical, ie: Daniel & the three worthies; Jonah & the whale; Job's ordeal; Blind Samson destroying the temple; etc, etc. No death of life forms in Eden? How about the seeds, nuts, vegatables, grains, fruit eaten?
Moses able to keep the people wandering in the desert for 40 years, just a few miles from the land of milk & honey, existing on one type of edible nourishment for 40 years? Moses was not an eyewitness to the Creation. If he actually scribed the first five books, he would have had to deliver them in a form that the people of that day could understand. (just as Ellen White delivered her messages according to the then known knowledge of the biology & geology of the Earth. Science has been very fruitful in the past 150 years of intelligent industry, giving much more accurate detail in the study of biology & geology & the fossil record. You are aware of the tremendous explosion of the advances of technical & medical expertize of the past 100 years. Are we to say these creature benefits were not the source of scientific research? These scientific inventions are of great complexity, as is the human brain that God gifted man. Science did not create man, God created man in His image. God created the heavens, Earth, & mankind according to His infinite timeless planning, not according to man's finite time frame. In Moses time, the people would not have understood millions & billions of seemingly endless Earth years. Is it not a reasonable, rational explanation by Moses, that the darkness & light phases would be more understandable by the people of His day? Think about it while you realize the advance of knowledge explosion of the past 100 years. Are we to ignore the intelligence of what our brain reveals to us?
To accuse God of 'creating' death would be to accuse him of creating sin. Death came as a consequence of man’s sin [1Cor 15:21; Gen 2:17; Rom 5:12; Rom 6:23]. For Dr Hoehn to pose that death was a common occurrence before sin and to presume that this is an acceptable alternative which has no major bearing on us as a community of faith in terms of our understanding and experience of Salvation and of God is questionable indeed. To me, it is inconsistent with what the Bible teaches. God created man from the dust of the ground and breathe into his nostrils the breath of life – and man became a living soul [Gen 2:7; 1Cor 15:45]. From this we can learn that: body + breath of God = a living soul.
22Oct1844: ''To accuse God of 'creating' death would be to accuse him of creating sin. Death came as a consequence of man’s sin'
Timo: 'That sin was 'war in heaven'-and surely had its consequences, and both had their genesis prior to Eden (which, according our standard narrative Eden was created to solve the already existent sin issue) makes it quite evident sin did exist prior to the creation narrative of earth vis-a-vis Genesis… For the life of me I cannot understand how Mr October1844 and the many others I have met like him within our faith community seem to blindly wish believe that sin entered the cosmos only when Eve took a bite.'
For me, God didn't create death – I agree with 22Oct1844 on that point. However, sin and death in the wider universe or even planet earth as a consequence of Adam's sin. That I believe is both Jack's and Timo's point – we forget that the problem of sin started before man was even on the scene.
There was already a sinful serpent in a sin-free Eden. There was sin in heaven before there was sin on earth.
There was clearly death of some sort in perfect Eden, because to eat fruit (even the non-foridden kind) requires plant death.
Your texts miss the point. Again, Jack made it quite clear that these texts only suggest sin and death entered mankind by Adam's sin. These texts don't categorically state there was no death whatsoever, which we know is not true because of plant death.
'Quack quack! Often it is utterly impossible-and fruitless-to try communicate with someone so entrenched in believing his view is the only one, no matter if he merely parrots Goldstein!'
For me, it isn't about being dogmatic in favour of theistic evolution. For me it is about being a little more open to these issues, and to admit that as much as people argue there are biblical and scientific problems with evolution, there are similar biblical and scientific problems with a YEC model.
A literal reading of the Genesis story makes as much sense as thinking the snake literally did eat dust, as we know snakes actually eat mice and other animals – not dust.
How do you explain or interpret the declarative statement made by God in Isaiah 45:7 KJV?
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."
Prestion,
Are you implying that God is saying that He in fact created evil? Or are we to understand that God assumes that which He allows? The Bible is clear, sin brought death, while Jesus abolished death (the 2nd death = wages of sin) which is our last enemy. Romans 5:12; 2 Timothy 1:10; 1 Corinthians 15:21.22.45-47.26
If God is omniscient and omnipotent, where did sin come from?
laffal,
This was/is a real question. I'm not implying anything. I am seeking to understand what God is claiming in this verse. Did evil exist before it entered the world? I think so. Some versions interpret the word "evil" as "calamity." Still, the notion of God creating anything negative is a bit disorienting. But, then, He did create everything.
Where does this verse fit in our theological house?
Earl, I realize that much of what OEC says makes sense to you, but I have to look at Scripture first and then science, to see if they agree, since God ultimately is the author of the Scriptures (having inspired the wording) and "the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (1 Peter 1:21) Do you think God, the ancient Hebrews and Prophets were less intelligent than scientists living today? What about Babylonian and Egyptian scholars?
I could counter your argument with the same logic. Now I will ask you to be nice. You're saying that God created man "according to His infinite timeless planning, not according to man's finite time frame." Man's finite time frame says that "it must have been billions of years, because, as a human, I don't see how it could have possibly happened instantaneously, or within a 24 hour period" You also assert that in Moses' time, people could not have understood a number as large as 1,000,000,000. Did you look that up first, to see if it was a fact?
The Jewish scribes and scholars that hand-copied the Torah (which consists of hundreds of thousands of characters) had to be aware of numbers larger than Seven, don't you think? And (by the OEC argument in Psalms 90:4) they certainly understood the number 1,000, so why didn't Moses say "the evening and the morning were a thousand years?" The ancient scholars developed a very intelligent system of ensuring that each (hand-copied) version of the Torah was identical to the last one. This system took into account every word, letter, and column of letters, and was as reliable as our modern computer CRC (cyclic redundancy check) which we use to verify that data remains unchanged as it traverses a network, not changing or losing a single bit. Since the Torah has characters numbering in the hundreds of thousands, surely they were aware of larger numbers. There is even the assumption we have to counter (in defense of the Seventh-day Sabbath) that modern man can not possibly know which day was the Sabbath thousands of years later, because ancient man (of course) was not intelligent enough to keep track of a repeating 7-day cycle. Yet modern "scientific" astronomers point to the ancient Hebrews as proof that we DO in fact know which day is Saturday.
You assume that because it doesn't say "one day is as a million or billion years" that ancient scholars were not aware of numbers that large, or did not have a method of expressing them. Judges 20:2 states that Israel had "four hundred thousand footmen that drew sword." We know that Israel was over a million in Moses' time and even greater when David numbered them. In Genesis 24:60, we find a blessing on Rebekah, "be thou the mother of thousands of millions." The Hebrew word for "millions" was hbbr, which means "multitude, myriad, ten thousand." Thousands of millions would actually be billions. Regardless of how it is expressed, they were aware of numbers that large. Moses could have just as easily written, "in 6 MYRIADS God created the heavens, the earth and all that in them is." There you have it.
It amazes me how YECs will quote lack of sceintific evidence for a literal creation week, and then make assumptions and pick arguments with no scientific or historical basis.
Ancient writings have been found revealing that the Babylonians knew about square roots, up to the square of 59. The ancient Babylonians used base 60. This is where we get our 60 seconds/minutes and 360 degrees in a circle. It would be much easier to write large numbers with base 60 than our decimal system. The Babylonians knew about the Pythagorean theorem. Surely counting to a million or a billion is much simpler than calculating the square root of 59 or figuring out the Pythagorean theorem. Among the ancient Indian Vedas (which lived up to 1500 BCE, which puts them before the Exodus) we find "individual Sanskrit names for each of the powers of 10 up to a trillion and even 10^62."
So there you have it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_mathematics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_mathematics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_large_numbers
'I have to look at Scripture first and then science…'
I think you mean you have to look at your interpretion of Scripture first and then science. If there are say two major views of scripture, given the ambiguities in scripture itself, and one matches science, then why would one chose the interpretative model that doesn't match science?
There are texts in the Bible that suggest the world is flat and earth the centre of the universe. Today, revisionists like to say the Bible never said that, but it only proves the point that the texts are more ambiguous than people thought. However, go ask Galilleo and Capernicous, because they will tell you people in their day didn't see any ambiguity in those texts and only interpreted in a very literal way as promoting a flat earth at the centre of the universe.
Centuries later we laugh at the absurdity of those Christians who persecuted Gallileo and Capernicous, who thought their ideas too dangerous for Christianity. Yet history simply repeats itself re this debate.
Stephen,
As a former adventist, who formally left the church more than 40 years ago, I see some interesting parallels and contrasts with organizations I have been involved in since that time–some community groups, others were national or international, some were issue oriented, some were professional societies, and others were nonprofit organizations or for profit companies where I was employed. In every group there has been diversity and not any absolutely consistent uniformity of thought or action. It seems to me that the most destructive aspect of any of these organizations has been a small subgroup of people who felt that they were right and everyone else was wrong, and those people often had zero tolerance for anyone not sharing their views. I do not know whether people who choose brittle and extreme positions are capable of doing otherwise. It seems to be the only perspective that suits them. It is sort of a personality thing.
Those who are tolerant of ambiguity and diversity are kind of obligated, in terms of internal consistency, to include and accommodate those who disagree with them, at least within limits. The limits, it seems to me have to do with reasonable and clear definitions of the goals and purposes of the organization, and whether people are willing to work to advance toward those goals rather than seeking to impede them.
So, among SDAs there are at least two extremes, it seems to me. Each is pretty intolerant of the other. My feeling is that the more traditional wing would be happy to see everyone else leave, while those at the other end of the spectrum would be quite relieved to not have to tolerate the traditionalists–even though they may be committed to being tolerant of everyone. And a few people of either extreme can make the church a very uncomfortable place for people at the opposite end of the spectrum.
Ultimately, from my perspective, it seems that those at one extreme are more passionately committed to remaining in the organization (and enforcing rules of compliance) than are those at the other extreme. People like me are far more comfortable outside the organization altogether, although some who remain in the church seem to share many of my views. It must be difficult for them to remain in the church. I am interested in better understanding how those who remain in the church rationalize doing so. Is it, perhaps, the feeling that this really is an organization that belongs to them as much as anyone else?
Dear Mr Onjukka my good friend
Again you misunderstand what I say. I wasn't talking of satan's fall but of mankind's. The Bible reveals that after man sinned it was only then that death and decay became the order of the day.
Dr Hoehn has to incorporate the death before sin belief into his theistic evolution spin even if it means going at loggerheads with the Bible. He will also go against what Ellen White has to say about this. Eg:
Mr Onjukka, your regular pot shots at your faith community's supposedly prevalent shortcomings is noticeable and arguably rather hostile. I suspect it is a deep seeded bad experience of the past which you hold traditional Adventism accountable for: but that is only a wild guess.
Clarification. Dr. Hoehn does not believe in theistic evolution. Never has. Things change and adapt or evolve, but that is not how things came to be, which is what Theistic Evolutionists and Atheistic Evolutionists believe.
Dr. Hoehn on the contrary believes in a progressive creationism, in which life is created and maintained by God who designed and uses nature to create the earth, seas, and sky and everything in them in 6 Heavenly Days, which happen to be longer then 24 hours.
Dr. Hoehn also believes that the Great Controversy truth revealed to Adventists through Ellen White is the key to explain why God's work has constantly been opposed and degraded by Satan from Day 1. That is why good and evil are demonstrated in all nature, from The Beginning till today.
Eve was real, Adam was real, the Fall was real, Salvation is real, Miracles are real, creation was Intelligently Designed and implemented as God saw best fit during his plan. The only unreal thing is an unholy elevation of a human prophet from a messenger to an oracle. And a pride of opinion that is unwilling to admit that she and we were wrong in simplifying God's complexity to meet our little ideas, when we should be willing to explode our little ideas with His huge truths. Creation is so much bigger and better than we had previously imagined. Adventism must broaden her tent and lengthen her stakes or fail God's purpose for us. This is not Theistic Evolution.
Stephen, you say "I am willing to accept there is more to these issues than we may have first thought." That is good. Please be willing then to accept my responses if they differ from your remarks. Thank you.
[Stephen] How could it be a 'human-day' of 24 hours, which is the rising and setting of the sun (per evening and morning refrain), when the sun was not even created till day 4?
[ken] Why couldn't it?
[Stephen] Why does the Bible talk elsewhere about how to God a day is a 1,000 years?
[ken] So because of this text, a day cannot equal 24 hours? Must it always equal 1,000 years, or only when you want it to? Why didn't Moses write, "the evening and morning were the first thousand [or million/billion] years?
[Stephen] Was God a liar when He said Adam would die in the same day he ate the fruit; whereas, Adam lived to 930-so years? I note that is much longer than a human-day but just shy of a God-day of 1,000 years.
[ken] Death started from the moment they ate the fruit.
[Stephen] Why doesn't the seventh-day in the Gen 1-2a account have the usual 'evening and morning' refrain? What is the importance of that?
[ken] You tell me.
[Stephen] Why does it say God called-forth creation from the land and sea?
[ken] …and the significance of this is?
[Stephen] Why was Adam created from the dust of the ground, rather than out of thin air?
[ken] You'll have to ask God that one.
[Stephen] Why do lions have carnivorous teeth? Were they made by God with those teeth, or have they evolved (or devolved or adapted) since the Fall? And if the Fall was just 6,000 years ago, isn't that massively quick evolution? And why have lions evolved (or devolved) so quickly in a few thousand years, but in the last 4,000 years since recorded history lions haven't changed much? Why the rapid evolution (or devolution) but then no change at all in the last 4,000 years?
[ken] None of these questions really have any bearing on whether mammals were created instantaneously, over 24 hours, or millions of years.
[Stephen] If Adam and Eve ate fruit before the Fall, wouldn't that have meant plant death – the death of plant cells?
[ken] Picking or eating a piece of fruit does not kill the tree. Besides, the promise that "you shall surely die" was directed at Adam & Eve, not plants.
[Stephen] If Adam and Eve only gained immortality from the Tree of Life, how did other animals gain immortality? Did that mean animals were more special than human beings then, with inherent immortality like gods? Did animals have to eat the Tree of Life then? What about animals on the other side of the world, or say a fish – how did they gain immortality?
[ken] God didn't tell us everything. The fact that he leaves some things undocumented does not disprove anything that he has documented.
[Stephen] Why was there a Garden of Eden at all, if the whole world was a perfect paradise? And why does the Bible suggest there was a less-than-Eden wilderness outside the Garden, to which Adam and Eve were expelled? Does that perhaps suggest only Eden was the 'sin-free' zone, but not the whole earth?
[ken] I don't know. As far as I know, we're not told. But the answer could be there. Search the Scriptures.
[Stephen] If evolution is so much rubbish, why do something like 97% of all scientists (and something like 99.5% of all scientists who are involved in evolution-related fields) believe in evolution?
[ken] If 99% or 51% of all Christians believe Sunday is the Sabbath, does that make it so?
[Stephen] Why after some 150 years or so hasn't be disproven if it is just one big conspiracy theory?
[ken] Regardless of whether you believe in Creation or Evolution, you have to accept what you believe on faith. Neither THEORY can be proven or reproduced in a laboratory setting. For one, only God can demonstrate instantaneous Creation, and I doubt he's willing to do that to satisfy men's curiosity that doubt His Word. As for evolution, it would be one very LONG experiment, though some have tried. I read of an experiment once where scientists tried combining the right organic compounds to create a seed, then planted it in the ground. It never sprouted. Even trying to create a single-celled organism in a laboratory has not proven successful. To be fair to evolutionists, they would have to allow billions of years to verify their theory. We're still waiting on that one and I'll get back to you when the results are in 🙂
[Stephen] Why do we see evolution before our very eyes in say antibiotic bacteria?
[ken] Genetic mutation does not disprove a literal 6 day creation.
[Stephen] Why are we so literal in reading about 6-days of creation, but not so literal anymore about the world being flat or the earth being the circle of the universe?
[ken] The Bible does not say the world is flat. In fact there is evidence in Psalms that the world is round. I think youu meant "earth being the CENTER of the universe"? The Bible also does not say that, although we believe that we are being observed by other worlds and unfallen beings, as the center of the sin problem and God's sacrifice of his son to save fallen humanity.
[Stephen] And why do we read much of the Bible as having a deeper, spiritual and metaphorical meaning? A point Adventists make clear everytime they have a prophecy seminar and tell the audience a day=1 year in Daniel or that the 7 Churches of Asia in Revelation means 7 Church-periods not 7 literal Churches.
[ken] If you've been to our seminars then you surely must have heard that we use a systematic way of determining when something is to be taken literal and when it is symbolic, by looking at the context. In the case of Daniel, he says for example "the seven horns are seven kings (Dan 7:24 and Rev 17:12) indicating plainly that the horns are symbolic. The day for year principle in Ezek 4:6 if you read in context specifies that it is talking about Ezekiel lying on his side for 40 literal days to bear the iniquity of the house of Israel, representing a day for a year. Does that mean that every time the Bible says "day" it means "year" or "1000 years" or "million years?" According to evolutionists, it is up to them to decide when and where to apply the rule. It's rather obvious they did not decide from reading the Bible, "comparing Scripture with Scripture" but from comparing the Bible to Evolutionary science and the writings of other OECs.
[Stephen] Why do we get so concerned about a few (a tiny amount in her total writings) about the age of the earth, but have no problems with glossing over her statements about masturbation causing cancer, or England intervening to assist the South in the Civil War? Why do we recognise Ellen White had 'present truth' in telling Captain Bates re the moons of Saturn, which was technically wrong, but which was what Bates needed to hear at the time?
[ken] Actually we don't know or understand all the causes of cancer. And the possibility of British involvement when the US was weakened by Civil War was more than a threat. Read about the Trent Affair. The statements on the number of moons surrounding Saturn were written by JN Loughborough, not EG White. That was the recognized number then. Did she really say there were 8 moons, or did Loughborough assume she numbered them? It's not in her writings.
[Stephen] Why do we not see that Ellen White was not a conveyor of scientific knowledge, just as Isaiah didn't know the earth was round, or Moses about DNA? Why do we judge her by a non-biblical standard?
[ken] Actually science has verified most if not all of her views on health. A lot of those views did not come directly from visions, but from the works of SDA researchers then, namely Kellogg, Dr. Trall and others. God showed her at various times that certain teachings of these men were correct or not correct.
[Stephen] Why don't we read Ellen White, or any biblical prophet for that reason, within her particular culture context?
[ken] We do.
[Stephen] Why have religiously conservative people, especially in the US, some firmly rejected biological evolution yet adopted whole-heartedly social, economic and cultural aspects of Darwinism?
[ken] Not everyone agrees on everything. There are different degrees of Creationism and Evolution. But you already know that.
Kenneth thanks for the detailed response. I will post further replies to your response shortly. Suffice to say, a lot of your answers seem to be 'we don't know.' It just proves my point about the ambiguity of the Genesis story, and the dangers of dogmatism in reading it.
It is quite a paradox: Adventists have created so many requirements and beliefs that one must expend the equal amount of time and study as a Catholic canon lawyer to be well versed in all its myriad aspects of belief.
Like Joe, I'm a former SDA and also enjoy religious discussions just as I also enjoy discussions on history, philosophy, justice, and current events.
But when such questions as Steve asks, which are all based on SDA beliefs, are answered as Ken has the majority of the time as unknown, or why does it matter, it only supports the suspicion that it is all ambiguous but some wish to believe in their personal interpretation as the truth; but when put to answer "why" they are unable to explain.
Perhaps it might all be better if Adventists accepted the simple statement that began the church: " I believe in Christ as my Savior," and allow the believer to form her own idea of the spiritual and practical meaning of that belief in her own life, without all the various vews being bombarded from all sides as necessary and the only true ones while all others are heresy.
Stephen, it also seems to me that there are a lot of answers that you don't know. Is that scary for you to admit?
While I'm at it, here are two more Ellen White quotes regarding significant changes in the natural world. (I now understand why evolutionist Adventists would try their level best to debunk the Messenger of God as she somehow seems to get in their way. If I believed like them I would do too). Well here they are:
Interested in my fellow bloggers thoughts. Does it not make sense that the Creator would foreknow that 'free choice would allow wrong choices;' sin would be a reality in this situation of freedom and thus The Creator designed nature to work under the conditions of natural selection or free choices. As Gerald Schroeder writes:
“Without some degree of randomness, all events and all choices in the universe would be totally predetermined by unyielding laws of nature, the physics and chemistry of all reactions. We would be mere robots. Our every thought and action would be fixed by the immediately preceding chemistry of our bodies and the conditions of our environment. The future would be controlled by the past.” “The Science of God,” p. 170.
Knowing all this, The Creator, before he created, took responsibility for “all” the effects of freedom that ‘open creation’ would unleash in human society. God did this by punishing himself on the Cross, taking the responsibility for our sin. AND, God did this from the beginning. “Foreordained before the foundation of the world, but manifested at the end of time for your sake." I Pet. 1:20
"The Lamb . . . was slain from the foundation of the world." Rev. 13:8
We see from these verses that The Creator, from his eternity, saw and re-acted to the sin situation before it actually ‘happened’ in the stream of earth-based time!
If this were not so then when mankind first sinned, mankind would have died “that very day.” Gen. 2:17.
Symbols of the Cross were placed on mankind before the event the symbols pointed to happened. “Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.” Gen. 3:21
The need for Calvary was “foreknown” and the benefits of the Cross proactively applied. “Who saved us according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ before the world began.” II Tim. 1:9
The reality of the death of Christ on Calvary was pro-actively applied to mankind in the garden, thousands of years before the event. In the same way, the effects of sin (death) were applied to nature before creation.
The Creator, before He created, would foreknow perfectly the negative outcomes due to free choice, and from the beginning He would design nature with the ability to adapt and maintain balance.
Nature was “made subject to vanity, not of its own [God’s] will . . .” Rom. 8:20 This is not referring to Adam but to God.
Death and predation–“Vanity” according to Paul, would be a reality until the “restoration of all things.” Acts 3:21
The Creator, in the final day, would free nature from this “bondage and corruption.” Paul again reminds us, “The creature was made subject to vanity, not of its own will, but by reason of him [God] who subjected the same in hope.” Rom. 8:20
“In Hope!” There is an inner sense in human hearts that something is wrong with this world. There is a sense not only of God, but a strong sense that God is good.
Our desire and hope for a ‘better world’ resonates with Scripture’s promises that “. . . the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.” Rom. 8:21
I suggest that if science and scripture disagree, one really needs to re-examine both, with great care, and maybe not be overconfident in either.
Why should anyone have all the answers? Life is so full of ambiguity for anyone to even conceive that he has all the answers. I have many more questions than answers:
"Philosophy asks questions that may never be answered. Religion has answers that may never be questioned."
Philosophy also asks questions no one including the philosopher understands! Do real people chat about the existential herminutic of clastic erdgeschichte? Or the Leitmotive of wholistic regressive synthesis? 🙂
Religion has answers to questions that everyone asks, and philosophers are not able to answer. Philosophy deals with what can be seen. Religion deals with what can be felt. Everyone prays when faced with danger. Oh God is the first thing out of the lips of most of us religiously trained or not. And real religious people understand and accept uncertainty. Humility is a Christian, not an atheistic virtue. Even if some ofus religionists surely lack it!
Why is it that Elaine can always come up the the best quotations?: "Philosophy asks questions that may never be answered. Religion has answers that may never be questioned." May I slightly amend the last sentense to read: "Some religionists think they have answers that may never be questioned to questions that most people are no longer asking."
Kenneth:
1. Yes, but be careful of mistaking your interpretation of Scripture as being incaptable with science with the Scripture itself. Upon even a pecusory view of Scripture, it is very ambiguous especially in Genesis, and there are interpretations that do afford with science.
2. What I meant was Gallileo and Capernicus were pesercuted by those who thought Scripture and science were incaptabale; whereas, even the most conservative Christian today recognises it was just the then-Church's interpretation of scripture that was incompatible. No serious Christian today still thinks the world is flat or the earth the centre of the universe do they? Yet it was a serious theological-scientific issue many centuries ago. I was just musing if Christians centuries from now will look back on us with the same manner.
3. For the simple reason that 99.5% of scientists tell me evolution is a true fact, which as a non-scientist, I find pretty hard to simply ignore. If theologians them come along and tell me that there are model of interpreting the Bible that is consistant with that basis, that Scipture and science don't contradict, then again that is hard to ignore. I am only looking for the truth. Is that the quest of most Adventists? Or have we just become like Roman Catholics, relying on Sacred Tradition and superstitution for the basis of our beliefs?
Kenneth don't mistake me. I am not saying I believe in theistic evolution. What I am saying is that I have doubts about YEC. Those doubts don't just stem from science, because I am no scientists. Those doubts stem from many and cumulative facts in the Scripture itself, which suggest a YEC is not even as wholly supported in the Bible as I may have been led to believe growing up in the Church.
Again, the Church Father Origen in the 2nd Century AD questions a literal interpretation of Genesis, given the sun was created on day 4 whilst the light only on day 1. How then could there be 'days' and 'evening and mornings'? Whilst some say it is God being light, but where that occurs in Rev there isn't day or night – just constant day.
The word 'day' (yom) doesn't necessarily mean 24 hours. We see that on the first 'day' of creation where God calls the light 'day'. So right at the beginning we have the word 'day' mean possibly 24-hours and 12-hours (daylight) if we even take a YEC.
And day 6 seems an impossibility if you have a YEC model. How could Adam have named all those billions of animal species in 24 hours, as well as undergo the operation to make Eve? If you take the time to work it out, it isn't possible.
There are a myriad of other problems, as I have outlined above and to which you don't seem to have the answers. If you don't have the answers, how can you be sure you are so right? How can you be sure your 'faith' is nothing more than wilfull ignorance, like Mormon Missionaries who tell converts just to 'believe in their boosom the Book of Mormon is right' or that Mary really was born in your own miraculous conception?
Faith without evidence is in my view superstituous ignorace. I am very willing to be convinced of YEC, both scientifically and scripturally, but people (including the Church's own GRI despite millions of dollars from our tithes) is doing a pretty poor job of it. Don't blame me when the Church's own handpicked scientists can't even diprove evolution in any convincing manner!
Touche, Bro. Ken. i believe perhaps you missed the intent of my above offering. The intelligence of GOD questioned, the intelligence of the universe, GOD, questioned? Impossible. The intelligence of the Hebrews, Prophets, Scholars, of the past, questioned? Certainly not. What was a given was their "CULTURES" had not acquired the "KNOWLEDGE" that most societies of the 20th & 21st centuries have acquired through literacy, and schools available to all. The prophets, scribes & scholars of old time, were few comparatively.
We are beholden to the"WORD of GOD", the "LIGHT of the WORLD", and the indwelling of the "HOLY SPIRIT", for knowledge, wisdom, & the "Truth", that sets us free of fear & trembling, and assures our confidence in the "ALMIGHTY".
We also owe a debt to Science that God has provided us, to gain knowledge of our world, and develop tools & devices to benefit mankind. You know what this knowledge & inventions of man are so i'll not need to elaborate them, recognizing that evil men have perverted and used this knowledge, also, to the detriment of man.
Further Response to Kenneth’s comments
Kenneth, much thanks to your detailed reply before. Further replies to your comments (please bear with me everyone else). I have also tried to break our discussion up into smaller posts, so it is easier for others to make their own comments about any particular aspect of this discussion.
Onus
Just to be sure we understand each other. I am not advocating any particular model of creation; for example, I am not advocating evolution because I have remaining doubts as to what is the proper model. Rather, I am just raising doubts about those who advocate a YEC and a so sure and dogmatic that this is the only possible interpretation from reading the Bible. Thus, the onus is not on me to prove anything – the onus is on those who say it is YEC or nothing.
A sunset and sunrise without a sun?
[Stephen] How could it be a 'human-day' of 24 hours, which is the rising and setting of the sun (per evening and morning refrain), when the sun was not even created till day 4?
[ken] Why couldn't it?
[Stephen #2] How can there be an evening or morning without there being a sunrise or sunset – it doesn’t make any sense if you read the phrase ‘it was evening and morning the first day’ (Gen 1:5) literally.
It was at creation that God gave the heavenly lights; the greater light to govern the day, and the smaller light to rule the night. Without the sun, there is no way to mark a day. As any reader of the Bible should know, of the many times "day" is used in the Bible, it does not always mean a 24-hour period, and for those who rely on Daniel's prophecies, the arbitrary choice to claim that those "days" are really "years" has nothing in the context to arrive at that conclusion.
How would the ancients determine months without the moon? How would a "day" be calculated without the sun? Imagine being dropped into a remote, place, isolated from all humans, how would time (without a watch of similar instrument) be accounted for?
When Joshua prayed for a longer day to win a battle, it was the sun, according to the story, that shone longer than usual. Clearly, a metaphor to illustrate a VERY LONG day. Just as many have used this term for a particular trying experience: "It was the longest day of my life."
Flat, literal reading of the Bible, and any ancient story, will fail to enjoy the many nuances that were used by the writers.
Yes good point about Joshua which again demonstrates a human day is made reference to the sun. Of course it is obvious and self-evident. The way people advocating YEC undertake theological gymnastics is interesting, precisely because they adopt all sorts of non-literal readings to make their model fit, even though they call heretic anyone who does not adopt a non-literal reading of the word 'day'.
A day in Gen only means 24 hours?
[Stephen] Why does the Bible talk elsewhere about how to God a day is a 1,000 years?
[ken] So because of this text, a day cannot equal 24 hours? Must it always equal 1,000 years, or only when you want it to? Why didn't Moses write, "the evening and morning were the first thousand [or million/billion] years?”
[Stephen #2] I did not say a day has to be a 1,000 years, I was merely saying a day doesn’t necessarily always have to mean 24 hours.
You’re mixing up the onuses again – I am not proving evolution, merely calling doubt into YEC. The onus is on you to prove a day has to be 24 hours and no other period. Gen 1:5 says God called the light ‘day’ – 12 hours. So already, in the first few verses of Gen, we see ‘day’ can mean something other than 24 hours.
Adventists make a 6-24-hour-day a most critical doctrine because without that absolute certainty, what would happen to sabbath? After Moses gave the Ten Commandments to the people, there were added hundreds of penalties and explanations of exactly how these rules should be observed. And the sabbath, as well as all of the feast days was determined by the moon. As any school child knows, a new moon is every 28 days (God's sign for months), and sabbath was to be from "one new moon to another" and 7 days following the new moon would be sabbath, and 7 after that, etc.
Inevitably, sabbath would have fallen on a different day of the week over a few months time.
No sabbath observer today keeps the sabbath according to the Bible, but modern calendars. No one today keeps the true "Bible" Sabbath as it was established by the moon. The Israelites anchored their days by nature, not calendars. The Psalmist writes (104:19) "He appointed the moon for seasons."
That the new moon and Sabbath were paired together is found in numerous verses:
Kings 4:23; 2 Chron. 2:4; 2 Chr. 8:13;Neh l0:33; Is. 1:13, 66:23.
Celebration of the new moon and full moon festivals were a common Semitic antiquity by both Babylonians and Hebrews. The Babylonians celebrated the 7thk 14th, 21st, and 28th days in honor of Sin, the moon-god.
Death from the moment Adam took the fruit?
[Stephen] Was God a liar when He said Adam would die in the same day he ate the fruit; whereas, Adam lived to 930-so years? I note that is much longer than a human-day but just shy of a God-day of 1,000 years.
[ken] Death started from the moment they ate the fruit.
[Stephen #2] Says who? Where is the ‘Thus saith the Lord’ for that statement? The only way to arrive at your conclusion is to say God’s statements should not always be understood so literally, as they can have hidden and deeper meanings – where God’s warning of death was really a spiritual death or a slow death, not the immediate death Adam thought. That merely proves my point about the dangers of reading everything in Gen so literally.
A seventh-day without an evening and morning
[Stephen] Why doesn't the seventh-day in the Gen 1-2a account have the usual 'evening and morning' refrain? What is the importance of that?
[ken] You tell me.
[Stephen #2] Augustine believed because it indicated God finished His creative activity on the Sabbath, and Has been resting ever since. God has not take a direct creative activity in the world since, giving dominion to mankind. Even God’s most direct intervention in the world since, in the incarnation of Christ, still involved God taking the form of a human being.
The point is, a ‘God week’ is not the same length of time as a ‘human week.’ God’s ‘day 1’ is not the same as an ordinary human day. Similarly, His Sabbath has now been in effect for eons; whereas, our weekly Sabbath is a memorial of that Sabbath.
God’s indirect method of creation
[Stephen] Why does it say God called-forth creation from the land and sea?
[ken] …and the significance of this is?
[Stephen #2] It’s significant because it demonstrates God creates indirectly, which is more in common with the theory of evolution. You and I are actually created by our parents, yet we still call God our creator. It’s a very important illusion or illustration as to how God creates, if one thinks about it.
Adam out of the dust
[Stephen] Why was Adam created from the dust of the ground, rather than out of thin air?
[ken] You'll have to ask God that one.
[Stephen #2] Sorry, but that’s not an answer. If you don’t have an answer to this, how can you be so sure about your YEC model. I wonder if it indicates mankind was not simply created out of thin air, as the YEC model will tell us, but fashioned out of pre-existent ‘stuff.’ And I wonder if ‘clay’ is merely a metaphor or illusion to our pre-human ancestors?
Lions with teeth (and don’t mention dinosaurs)
[Stephen] Why do lions have carnivorous teeth? Were they made by God with those teeth, or have they evolved (or devolved or adapted) since the Fall? And if the Fall was just 6,000 years ago, isn't that massively quick evolution? And why have lions evolved (or devolved) so quickly in a few thousand years, but in the last 4,000 years since recorded history lions haven't changed much? Why the rapid evolution (or devolution) but then no change at all in the last 4,000 years?
[ken] None of these questions really have any bearing on whether mammals were created instantaneously, over 24 hours, or millions of years.
[Stephen #2] Sorry but your reply is a cop out – a lion’s carnivorous teeth have everything to do with this. If a lion has teeth designed to eat other animals, and a
YEC says a mere 10,000 or so years ago lions only ate vegetables, the obvious question is – where did lions get their teeth. A YEC proponent then has to either say God either created a lion with carnivorous teeth, which makes no sense whatsoever as if God knew there would be a Fall, or a lion suddenly evolved those teeth in a few thousand years. The irony of the latter argument is that it suggests evolution is true, and actually happens far quicker than evolutions themselves would suggest possible.
And I didn’t even make mention of the problem of dinosaurs.
Plant death before the Fall
[Stephen] If Adam and Eve ate fruit before the Fall, wouldn't that have meant plant death – the death of plant cells?
[ken] Picking or eating a piece of fruit does not kill the tree. Besides, the promise that "you shall surely die" was directed at Adam & Eve, not plants.
[Stephen #2] Are, so we agree then there was death in Eden – it was just Adam and Eve who were promised immortality. This goes to the heart of Jack's point per this article. No further questions Your Honour.
Immortal animals
[Stephen] If Adam and Eve only gained immortality from the Tree of Life, how did other animals gain immortality? Did that mean animals were more special than human beings then, with inherent immortality like gods? Did animals have to eat the Tree of Life then? What about animals on the other side of the world, or say a fish – how did they gain immortality?
[ken] God didn't tell us everything. The fact that he leaves some things undocumented does not disprove anything that he has documented.
[Stephen #2] Exactly, and then why are you so sure of a YEC then, based on a few poetic lines from Gen? Why do you treat Gen like a science book? In fact, the Bible doesn’t actually say how old the earth is – that information is pieced together much later by others. If God wanted us to impose a definite timeframe on the age of the earth, at say 6,000-10,000 years, why then does the Bible make no such categorical statements? Why then do churches like the SDA Church try to prove and impose views about something God chose not to articulate in the Bible?
A wilderness outside of Eden
[Stephen] Why was there a Garden of Eden at all, if the whole world was a perfect paradise? And why does the Bible suggest there was a less-than-Eden wilderness outside the Garden, to which Adam and Eve were expelled? Does that perhaps suggest only Eden was the 'sin-free' zone, but not the whole earth?
[ken] I don't know. As far as I know, we're not told. But the answer could be there. Search the Scriptures.
[Stephen #2] Sorry, but another cop-out answer Kenneth. Again, the onus is not on me to prove that the whole world was sinful and had pre-existing death, but on you to prove the opposite – if you want to uphold a YEC model that is.
It is of real significance that the Bible suggests there was a wilderness outside of Eden. It suggests that if Eden was a sin-free, death-free place, it was only limited to Eden. It is also for that reason that Adam and Eve, once they sinned, were expelled from Eden, which was thereafter guarded by a Cherubin, before presumably being taken up into heaven.
Thus, one might suggest that your YEC model might only apply to Eden, not the whole planet. The rest of planet earth clearly wasn’t a perfect Paradise. The beginning of Gen 2 suggests that, describing the state of the earth before God planted Eden. If the whole world wasn’t a perfect Paradise – why? Does that point to the type of world we see around us – the remaining, tooth-and-claw natural environment we see around us? Did that wilderness exist then before Eden, and if so, perhaps millions or billions of years before Eden?
Perhaps this has come up before, but on the question of Adam and Eve's mortality, a significant amount of space in Genesis is dedicated to the proposition that eternal life was contingent as much on partaking of the Tree of Life as on obedience to God. It becomes hard to resist the conclusion that the Tree of Life was actually the more vital element in immortality, in that God took extraordinary precautions to ban the couple from eating of the Tree of Life, after they had sinned. God is quoted as saying that the death sentence would only apply if the couple was prohibited from ever again eating the fruit (and perhaps the leaves as well) of this truly remarkable tree. One could go a step further and note that when it came to trees, the Tree of Life trumped the power of the Tree of Knowledge. I will spare you here, but I find it mind-expanding (have I eaten of the Tree of Knowledge? Hope not….) to ponder what certainly are intended as deep lessons in the discussions recorded in the Bible as taking place immediately prior to the unceremonious expulsion of the by now more modestly turned out couple of rebels and the now-dominant Adam who with sarcasm blames the whole fiasco on Eve. But now the simple point: Since life outside the garden had no access to the Tree of Life, there was presumably a routine succession of birth and death taking place, as it did with the Adamic race from that time onward. Some have suggested that Adam and Eve produced a race known as the "Sons of God" and that those who had previously lived outside the garden were the "Sons of Men" and that great harm was done to Adam's race when the Sons of Men looked on his daughters and conceived with them what we might call a hybrid strain of humanity. Genesis is full of surprises and if hard to nail down in ever sense of its teachings, certainly Genesis hints that the author was highly informed on matters of natural science, but chose to "clothe" that knowledge in the language of a epoch poem intended to teach, but not bog itself down in detail….
Yes, Ed, yes. God created both trees and placed them in the garden. The sin was not wanting knowledge, that would have come with life. The question was woman and man to know evil from above or from below? To know evil and understand it by watching it work out in the creation outside the garden as loving observant saints, or to know evil by experiencing it themselves and in their children as dying fallen sinners?
Weight of scientific consensus
[Stephen] If evolution is so much rubbish, why do something like 97% of all scientists (and something like 99.5% of all scientists who are involved in evolution-related fields) believe in evolution?
[ken] If 99% or 51% of all Christians believe Sunday is the Sabbath, does that make it so?
[Stephen #2] So do you believe the world is perhaps flat then also? How about the moon landing?
Years if YEC failure to disprove evolution
[Stephen] Why after some 150 years or so hasn't be disproven if it is just one big conspiracy theory?
[ken] Regardless of whether you believe in Creation or Evolution, you have to accept what you believe on faith. Neither THEORY can be proven or reproduced in a laboratory setting. For one, only God can demonstrate instantaneous Creation, and I doubt he's willing to do that to satisfy men's curiosity that doubt His Word. As for evolution, it would be one very LONG experiment, though some have tried. I read of an experiment once where scientists tried combining the right organic compounds to create a seed, then planted it in the ground. It never sprouted. Even trying to create a single-celled organism in a laboratory has not proven successful. To be fair to evolutionists, they would have to allow billions of years to verify their theory. We're still waiting on that one and I'll get back to you when the results are in 🙂
[Stephen #2] Yes, we need to have faith, but blind faith that is contrary to reason – I hope not. As for your anecdote, as I noted above, YEC actually believe in rapid evolution – even more so than evolutionists. Otherwise, how did your lions get their carnivorous teeth or a rose its thorns?
Evolution before our very eyes – anti-biotic resistant bacteria
[Stephen] Why do we see evolution before our very eyes in say antibiotic bacteria?
[ken] Genetic mutation does not disprove a literal 6 day creation.
[Stephen #2] Sorry you are happy to accept animals and plants can adapt, and that includes adaptions that can be beneficial for survival? The only thing you dispute then is the origin, and the length of time for such adaptions? Again, if you promote a theory of just 6-10,000 years since the Fall, how did the lion get its teeth or a rose its thorns?
A flat earth and fixed world
[Stephen] Why are we so literal in reading about 6-days of creation, but not so literal anymore about the world being flat or the earth being the circle of the universe?
[ken] The Bible does not say the world is flat. In fact there is evidence in Psalms that the world is round. I think you meant "earth being the CENTER of the universe"? The Bible also does not say that, although we believe that we are being observed by other worlds and unfallen beings, as the center of the sin problem and God's sacrifice of his son to save fallen humanity.
[Stephen #2] You say now in hindsight that the Bible is not flat or the earth the centre of the universe. However, go ask Gallileo or Capernicous, because they will tell you the Christians in their day did read the Bible in a very literal manner to support those views. In centuries from now, no doubt Christians will look back and say, ‘The Bible does not say the world was created in 6 literal, 24 hour days.’
A day=a year
[Stephen] And why do we read much of the Bible as having a deeper, spiritual and metaphorical meaning? A point Adventists make clear everytime they have a prophecy seminar and tell the audience a day=1 year in Daniel or that the 7 Churches of Asia in Revelation means 7 Church-periods not 7 literal Churches.
[ken] If you've been to our seminars then you surely must have heard that we use a systematic way of determining when something is to be taken literal and when it is symbolic, by looking at the context. In the case of Daniel, he says for example "the seven horns are seven kings (Dan 7:24 and Rev 17:12) indicating plainly that the horns are symbolic. The day for year principle in Ezek 4:6 if you read in context specifies that it is talking about Ezekiel lying on his side for 40 literal days to bear the iniquity of the house of Israel, representing a day for a year. Does that mean that every time the Bible says "day" it means "year" or "1000 years" or "million years?" According to evolutionists, it is up to them to decide when and where to apply the rule. It's rather obvious they did not decide from reading the Bible, "comparing Scripture with Scripture" but from comparing the Bible to Evolutionary science and the writings of other OECs.
[Stephen #2] So how do we know if everything in Genesis is to be taken so literally then, and not in a symbolic and eschatological way? How do you pick and choose, especially given Gen symbolic and poetic genre and sitz in laben?
You have already stated above that when God told Adam he would die the same day he ate the fruit, God’s words did not literally mean that day, but had a deeper or symbolic meaning, such as meaning to begin dying, or a spiritual death re his disconnect from God.
Similarly, when God says in Gen 3:15 that the snake’s offspring will bite the woman’s offspring’s heel, and he will crush its head, was this a literal statement about human-snake interactions. Or was it perhaps a prophetic and symbolic message, not about a literal snake, but about Satan vs Christ?
To jump from Daniel to Ezekiel to "prove" that a day really means years, should also work if we jump to Peter where God says a thousand days is as a thousand years, or vice versa. Where in Daniel is there instruction to go to Ezekiel to interpret this prophecy?? This "here a text, there a text" can also lead one to the old canard: "Judas killed himself; go thou and do likewise."
Ellen White, masturbation and English involvement in the Civil War
[Stephen] Why do we get so concerned about a few (a tiny amount in her total writings) about the age of the earth, but have no problems with glossing over her statements about masturbation causing cancer, or England intervening to assist the South in the Civil War? Why do we recognise Ellen White had 'present truth' in telling Captain Bates re the moons of Saturn, which was technically wrong, but which was what Bates needed to hear at the time?
[ken] Actually we don't know or understand all the causes of cancer. And the possibility of British involvement when the US was weakened by Civil War was more than a threat. Read about the Trent Affair. The statements on the number of moons surrounding Saturn were written by JN Loughborough, not EG White. That was the recognized number then. Did she really say there were 8 moons, or did Loughborough assume she numbered them? It's not in her writings.
[Stephen #2] So you believe masturbation does cause cancer then – are you serious? What about the story of Saturn’s moons? I believe that story best illustrates that Ellen White was technically and scientifically ‘wrong’, but provided ‘present truth’, which is the truth as the people at the time needed and were able to hear.
Ellen White’s scientific credentials
[Stephen] Why do we not see that Ellen White was not a conveyor of scientific knowledge, just as Isaiah didn't know the earth was round, or Moses about DNA? Why do we judge her by a non-biblical standard?
[ken] Actually science has verified most if not all of her views on health. A lot of those views did not come directly from visions, but from the works of SDA researchers then, namely Kellogg, Dr. Trall and others. God showed her at various times that certain teachings of these men were correct or not correct.
[Stephen #2] Apart from her views about masturbation that is?
Sorry, while EGW may have gotten her health information from various sources, which are well known, she was wrong as many times as right: coffee is now proved beneficial in moderation; as is wine. The Blue Zones of the Mediterranean liberally drink wine and eat cheese, another "no-no."
Wigs do not cause major health problems (poor chemo patients who must resort to wigs), Corsets do not genetically cause generations of enfeebled and small organs, and more. As for tobacco being harmful, I recall my grandfather (born right after the Civil War) who spoke of them as "coffin nails" which was a common statement. None of her health messages were unique with her.
Ron Numbers details this much more in his seminal book "Prophetess of Health." Only to those literally challenged is she an original on health.
There is no need to minimize the practical value of Ellen White being countercultural for the good of Adventists then and now. It is not a question of uniqueness, it was a message that left a legacy of health and healing in a fairly sick 19th century world of filth and disease who used dangerous drugs recklessly, had harmful habits of dress, and had no way of knowing from their science of the benefits of whole grains, and a plant based dietary supplemented by safer animal products. Give Ellen her due, she was a remarkable visionary! That there was some chaff among her wheat does not diminish her standing as a formidible woman, who did much good to her church and her nation. Peanut butter and soy milk are no longer Adventist curiosities! Plant based diets come from every nutritionist in the world! Adventist vegans do live longer than non-adventist carnivours. And those who use coffee as a useful occasional medicinal drug instead of a daily beverage, and who avoid alcohol do bypass many common medical conditions from these drinks, from atrial fibrillation, to stomache ulcers, to cirrhosis of the liver. The majority of what she promoted is still good advice, as long as you take it as advice and not heaven sent rules for sanctification.
Ellen White judged by a biblical standard
[Stephen] Why don't we read Ellen White, or any biblical prophet for that reason, within her particular culture context?
[ken] We do.
[Stephen #2] Are you sure?
Disagreements
[Stephen] Why have religiously conservative people, especially in the US, some firmly rejected biological evolution yet adopted whole-heartedly social, economic and cultural aspects of Darwinism?
[ken] Not everyone agrees on everything. There are different degrees of Creationism and Evolution. But you already know that.
[Stephen #2] Yes I know that – it is precisely my point. Why does the SDA Church, especially at the GC level, have its own narrow view of creationism, and expect it to be imposed on everyone? Why is Pres Wilson trying to amend FB#6? My point about social-Darwinism in the US within religiously conservative people stands though.
Further Questions for Kenneth and YEC-defenders
Some further questions I should have asked last time, but forgot, include the following:
[Stephen] How could all the events described as occurring in day 6, being the creation of both male and female, and the naming of the animals, have occurred in less than 24 hours (assuming Adam named throughout the night and not taking into account how long his operation was to make Eve)? For example, there are billions of animals species. Even if Adam named 1 a second, there wouldn’t be enough seconds in a 24-hour period.
[Stephen] Do you read everything in the Genesis account literally? So when in Gen 3 it says the snake will eat dust, do you believe it will literally eat dust? Because you do know snakes don’t eat dust, they eat mice and other animals? So if you say, that was only a figure of speech or a metaphor, how do you know other parts of Genesis are not a figure or speech or a metaphor? How does one pick and choose?
[Stephen] Why is there no direct record of Adam keeping God’s Sabbath? For me, as outlined above, because ‘God’s week’ is a different length of time from a ‘human week.’ The seventh-day weekly Sabbath only commenced after God had finished creation, and in imitation of God. The human weekly rest is only a memorial of God’s rest, in the same way as the weekly work (which is also part of the Sabbath command) is a memorial to God’s original creation. As human creative activity is an image of God, as human being were created as images of God, so too our Sabbath is an image of God’s eternal and ongoing Sabbath since creation. This does not abrogate the weekly Sabbath but rather entrenches its importance, in recognising mankind’s place as image of God in this world.
Further Questions for Kenneth and YEC-defenders #2
[Stephen] And I should add, why was Cain scared he would be harmed by other people (Gen 4:14)? The passage doesn't make any sense if the only people alive then was Adam and Eve (and possibly some younger sisters). The passage certainly suggests there were no other brothers alive after Cain killed Abel, given the importance to Seth (Gen 4:25).
[Stephen] Why did Cain build a whole City after giving birth to just 1 son – a bit much? Wouldn't it be like a hamlet, a village at best, with even a town pushing it – but a whole city? It doesn't make sense (Gen 4:17)
[Stephen] Why did Adam and Eve call Abel the name Abel, which I understand in Hebrew means 'breath' or 'fleeting'. Seems pretty bad luck or things considered.
Thankyou Elaine for your comments above – interesting points.
This is a most interesting thread, and I can no longer refrain from comment. Sorry Jack.
Let's take this from the "flood" backwards. On balance of data there seems to be zero geologic evidence that a global flood ever took place, especially within the last 4 – 5 k yrs. On the other hand, there is vast amounts of data that such an event has not taken place.
Thus, the story of Noah, which is demonstrably based on and built from pre-existing "flood" stories "borrowed" by Moses, must be considered mythical. A story with a moral, but no basis in real history.
Take a step back to the Genesis story. What evidence is there that, beyond the names of a river or so, there is not a shred of evidence for a historical reality? It also reflects pre-existing creation myths borrowed and re-shaped by Moses. Yet, in spite of this, as I read this thread, I find people earnestly discussing the minutia of the Garden story, as if there is profound reality behind every shrub, fig leaf, animal name, and nuance of the story add nauseum.
I have to confess, I can no longer understand this. Rational people, taking a story which is beyond doubt demonstrated as borrowed and reshaped to form a new myth, as fact! Not only fact, but using it to build declarations about reality that contradict science and empirically demonstrable facts about this world.
Stephen Ferguson, I appreciate that you are attempting to move it away from literal in part, with discussion of sharks, etc. A good direction imho.
Jack, if you remove your "imaginary" devil from the scenario what do you have? Zero explanation above an evolutionary process. I cannot find evidence of a personal devil, let alone the use to which you put him.
Jack, if Christians are to find any credibility with the scientific world, and thinking people, we must go vastly beyond your imaginative long time creation. We must accept there are values and principles we can present as the core of Christianity, but beyond that we must let science be science, instead of imposing upon it these fancifull contortions to try to justify "our God" and what we think he achieved or did. Long time or short creation, it barely makes a difference because both reach conclusions way beyond the reality suggested by science.
. .
Chris, actually Noah's flood is fairly well supported by several lines of historical and scientific evidence. My last blog coming out this week discusses that very topic in detail.
My "imaginative long time creation" is no more or less imaginative than other theories of creation including "scientific" just so stories. Thinking people daily find credibility in a view that accepts science as a useful commentary on Bibilical truths.
Your acceptance of naturalistic God-free science as the final authority and your impression that the ugly and bizarre in creation have defamed a loving and wise God for you, may be as fanciful or "contorted" as my concordism between the God revealed on Calvary and in the Creation.
If you are unable to see the Lucifer Factor in Creation, I'm afraid it will indeed tarnish your image of the Creator. A decision that there is no devil makes it difficult for that conversation to proceed.
I'll just say I've seen enough evidence of the demonic that I have no doubts about the reality of personal evil.
But I have likely exhausted your patience, as I come to the end of a too long series of blogs, so soon you can RIP from my theological suggestions. As you know I was not writing to convince committed evolutionists. I was writing for my fellow church members, asking for freedom and openness to explore a larger theology of Creation.
May you find a Savior adequate for your needs is my wish for you in this intelligently designed world of awesome good and awful evil.
To claim that you find the Bible creation story "no more or less imaginative than other theories" is only an attempt to say, "Well, they all have such stories." Why are all the others considered myths, and only the Bible one is literally true?
As to Lucifer (the name did not arise until Jerome in the fourth century while translating the Bible into Latin, gave that the name for "bright shining star." And for having seen evidence of the demonic, surely, that is most subjective, and almost identical to aborignal tribes who attribute bad things to a human as a witch doctor giving curses. What is demonic to you is merely circumstantial that is unexplainable. With so many events and situations without verifiable causes, they could all be called "demonic" meaning only that the claimant believes in demons, nothing else.
If someone must have demons and the Bible as scientifically and accurately true in order to accept Christ, it is a heavy price that requires one to forego his reasoning ability, something irrational in all other situations, .
Has anyone ever suggested that evolution has never occurred in some manner or form?
If God can do anything, why couldn’t thorns or canine teeth develop (evolve or devolve) in short order, if not spontaneously?
My questions are if God can do anything, including reanimate dead and decaying cells, why is it difficult/impossible to believe that He did what He said He did?
How do we know that He hears and answers inaudible thought prayers, for instance? What scientific 'evidence' is there of that?
Ironically, along these lines, something that Chris Barrett has said ironically resonates with me: “Long time or short creation, it barely makes a difference because both reach conclusions way beyond the reality suggested by science.
Actually, along these lines, something that Chris Barrett has…
Stephen,
It is not a matter of some kind of evolution happening. It's the so called "macro" that gets people going. I don't think we can separate micr and macro. It's all different points on the same stick.
Re inaudible prayers. How do we know? We don't, and personal experience is notoriously unreliable in that domain.
I included that last sentence because Jack made it clear he does not wish to be called a theistic evolutionist, but a long term creationist or similar. To me this view fails to admit evolution for what it is: evolution. Instead it just tries to use "time" with a God poked into the situation, to hijack all that science has demonstrated about nature through the theory of evolution, and applies it to God, no holds barred.
The conclusions Jack reaches that are beyond the reality suggested by science are essentially founded on an interventionist, full on, Bible God. I know that is your point, and I can understand why it resonates with you, because you see all evolutionary roads leading the same place – a bad one. I personally don't care where they lead. If perchance they eventually lead back to God I have no objections. As long as evidence and reason are used to get there. At this point I see no such evidence of course.
“I know that is your point, and I can understand why it resonates with you, because you see all evolutionary roads leading the same place – a bad one.”
I am not sure what you mean by “a bad one” this Chris. Would you care to elaborate on this?
Away from God.
To elaborate. My point in the sentence you highlighted was that both short term YEC creation, and Jack's long term creation all lead to a miraculous, interventionist type God, which is a long way beyond where science points.
When I say I see why it resonates with you, because all roads lead to a bad place, as I understand you would see it. I am taking the opposite of my point about where these two views of creation go (God) which is "away from God". From how I understand your view, you believe that all evolutionary roads, be they theistic, or long term like Jack's, lead away from God. ie a bad place.
If I've got this wrong, I'm happy to be corrected.
I don’t perceive a difference in devolution and evolution for our purposes. Things changed after creation is how I understand either. If I believe devolution to have occurred, I must believe evolution to be possible.
The difference is that I believe in either case, whatever happened occurred within the revealed Biblical context; that God, or rebellion against God, caused whatever happened to happen.
(Thus evolution does not necessarily lead to the “bad place” for me you’ve assumed.)
What I have said further down on this thread, and what we have previously discussed, is why your comment particularly resonated with me. To wit, that in reality “Long time or short creation, it barely makes a difference because both reach conclusions way beyond the reality suggested by science."
Jack,
"I was writing for my fellow church members, asking for freedom and openness to explore a larger theology of Creation."
In spite of my criticism, I do see that, and respect that. What I am adding is that it must be much, much larger. Larger than I think you imagine or anticipate. Or perhaps want to entertain. If there is any value for such as I here (and others with wider views), it is to help your "fellow church members", to grasp that it is a big issue and perhaps see some of the wider implications from another persepective.
Re evidence for the flood. That will be very interesting. I hope in dealing with the topic you address the presence of the geologic column, the presence of oil and gas thousands of meters beneath the Bible lands, salt under the gulf of Mexico, and indeed massive parts of your country, the Dead Sea, Mt Sodom and Lisan salt diapers, the sea fossils in the Great Pyramid stones, the White cliffs of Dover, the Peat bogs of Normandy (as related to White cliffs)… and so on. Perhaps even just a few of these would be interesting.
Actually, I probably should note. I am not a committed evolutionist. That is false. It seems at this point to best fit the evidence. If other evidence arises to counter this: Great!
Stephen: 'If God can do anything, why couldn’t thorns or canine teeth develop (evolve or devolve) in short order, if not spontaneously?'
This sort of argument is trundled out every now and then. Similar arguments are made about a fossile record, as if God just made the earth 6,000 to look like it was millions of years old.
To be honest, Stephen, your hypothesis could be true. It is certainly within God's power to make a canine's teeth in short order, if not spontaneously. God could perhaps do anything, except insofar it would be contrary to His own nature, which is Love.
However, that would make for a 'trickster God.' We equally would say God could have created the whole universe 5 seconds ago, and that He just implanted memories into our brains to make us believe we had previous lives.
I personally don't believe in a trickster God – do you?
From childhood, I was taught that the carnivorous animals were once tame and herbivores. Where is the evidence that they have not always been carnivores? Many subsist only on other animals and cannot live on plants alone as their digestive system requires flesh.
To suggest that God, in a split second, switched all those animals from herbivores to carnivores could only be believed by a small child; all other thinking adults realize the futility of such an explanation.
Stephen Ferguson, I think your concept of a "trickster God" is very apt. That is the kind of God in which I am not able to believe. Of course, I could be wrong. God could be like that. I just don't find the "trickster God" and the "loving God" to be compatible with each other, let alone either one being consistent with the available real world evidence.
So, for me, the answer is "I do not understand how to believe in God." I can accept that some people are able to believe without understanding or that they are able to live with an illusion of understanding. As far as science goes, I appreciate that it is a set of methods of increasing understanding of the physical world. I do not view scientific evidence as an infallible pathway to paradise.
To me, science offers methods of obtaining and evaluating evidence that provides successive approximations (tentative steps) toward understanding of objective reality. And I strive to hold knowledge very gently, in the sense that what I think I know today, may turn out to be incomplete or inaccurate tomorrow. This means that I have a continuing struggle against the narrow dogma and air of certainty with which I was raised.
There is a sense in which we choose (if not invent) our own God. The nature of that God (the characteristics that we attribute to that God) can determine the ways in which we are inspired to be and act–the directions to which we aspire. There is a kind of transcendent reality to a God (whether just conceptual or something more) who has a positive and constructive impact on human behavior. Those who are generous with love and acceptance of diversity reflect the loving God they worship–if they have or believe they have such a God. But I have also found many very generous and constructive people who were not believers.
Right, Timo, about Canis latrans….
Whilst I am an unapolegetic theist, I agree insofar as I believe humankind is the image of the divine. That means we do to some degree 'invent' God in our minds, but that that invention in itself is a reflection of the actual God who really is. By analogy, it is like someone who has amnesia and say has forgotten that their father was called Bob, and then went on name their own son Bob. Sure, the naming of the son Bob is an 'invention' of sorts, but it also reflects a higher reality, if mostly forgotten and only remembered in the very deep recesses of the mind. The more I study religion, the more I am struck at how these 'inventions' of God are alike, albeit using different names. A bit of a hippi response I know…
Very Jungian, Stephen. Also rather like the "instincts" of early ethologists.
Your views, Stephen, and your honest search, have enriched this site, in my opinion.
There is a sense in which we choose (if not invent) our own God. The nature of that God (the characteristics that we attribute to that God) can determine the ways in which we are inspired to be and act–the directions to which we aspire. There is a kind of transcendent reality to a God (whether just conceptual or something more) who has a positive and constructive impact on human behavior. Those who are generous with love and acceptance of diversity reflect the loving God they worship–if they have or believe they have such a God. But I have also found many very generous and constructive people who were not believers.
Right, Timo, about Canis latrans….
I don't recall God or His Son asking believers to deny their senses of the world around them. His message was simple and uncomplicated and humans have made it more complicated every day. In the beginning of the Christian church, it was the confession that Christ is Lord and Savior. The SDA church has piled on requirements one after another which dilute and hide the essential Gospel message.
It is no longer His church but a club of their own making.
What is a “trickster God”? Whose definition is that? How would anyone ‘classify”’ or ‘categorize’ a God who ‘performed’ the miracles or otherwise inexplicable acts of supernatural, I repeat supernatural, acts recorded in the Bible?
Don’t misunderstand me, please. I fully understand why someone would not believe that those acts ever occurred or possibly could occur.
I fully understand those who do not believe that God would defy the man-known laws of observable nature to perform ‘tricks.’
I do not understand how those who believe that God chose to be born of a virgin, and turned water into wine, and walked on water in liquid form, and changed the weather by His voice, and fed 10-15,000 people with one child’s lunch, or gave sight to one born blind, or resurrected dead people, etc., do not consider these equivalent to ‘tricks.’
Stephen,
If you knew that there were pagan gods who were said to be born of a virgin, turned water into wine, and did all the miracles attributed to Jesus in the Bible, would you say all those were tricks or frauds? You never personally observed any, but you believe because someone 2,000 years ago made the claims in both instances? Go to the site POCM to discover the origin of these stories, or The Jesus Mysteries.
The earliest NT writers never mentioned these miraculous events. Even the first Gospel writer never mentioned the virgin birth; and even the two accounts in Matthew and Luke are so contradictory it is impossible to correlate the events in any comprehensible way. Paul knew nothing about a virginal birth; and Mark mentioned neither Jesus' birth or Resurrection, and there were no eyewitnesses to any of these miracles who wrote the NT; all information was repeated second and third hand.
That's why Christianity is a belief, or faith. Neither are based on reality.
With great respect Elaine, you completely miss my point. How many times do I have to reiterate that I totally understand why, for various reasons, those who do not believe that any of the recorded miracles or tricks or repeated fables or whatever you consider them to be, ever occurred in “reality?” You may not believe that these miracles ever happened; and I can understand that. (We’ve been here before, to some extent.)
What I, again, do not understand is why those WHO DO BELIEVE that these various Biblically recorded miracles, tricks, repeated fables, or whatever, ACTUALLY DID OCCUR—things that ALL scientific evidence and ALL physical evidence or adult thinking or objective observance (or whatever you want to call it) tell us could NOT happen—find it at all difficult to ALSO believe that God created this world in six days, like He said He did.
If physical and scientific evidence is sufficient to prove that God could not have created the world is six earth days, why isn’t physical and scientific evidence sufficient to prove some of these ‘tricks’ impossible?
The point about the "trickster" notion is that if God created the world in six literal earth days but made everything look like that is not the way it happened, that is deceptive and out of character for One devoted to honesty and truth. There really is not ANY physical, scientifically accessible information that remotely suggests a six-day or recent creation event–all the evidence suggests otherwise.
Joe,
I hate to sound like a broken record, but “there really is not ANY physical, scientifically accessible information that remotely suggests” that any of the Biblical miracles could ever have taken place; yet my brother Stephen Ferguson, who I think believes that the Biblical miracles did take place, would consider God a “trickster” to have created the world in six literal days without leaving “ANY physical, scientifically accessible information that remotely suggests” that He did so.
That doesn’t make much sense to me. Does it make sense to you, Joe?
And the question remains,
Why would God choose to "trick" us making everything that was new to look like old?
This makes absolutely no sense. It's just a poor, desperate argument used by those who cannot explain why things look older than they would like to.
As no one knows how long the earth was in existence "without form and void," some things may look old because they are old. Things may also appear old for the same reason that it appears not possible to walk on liquid water, or for decaying human cell matter to be completely reanimated by voice command.
What distinguishes a “trick” from a miracle from any supernatural act of the Divine?
I take your point, and think I agree with you that he might wish to reconsider accepting that the various "miracles" actually occurred as described. But is that really the point you wish to make?
No Joe, the point I actually wish to make is that he should reconsider what appears to a rejection of the Genesis 6-day narrative simply based on a lack of apparent accessible scientific or physical evidence that it possibly could have happened.
So, you advise that people not reject the possibility that the 6-day narrative just because there is no evidence for it, essentially advising that they ignore the abundant evidence that indicates that it didn't happen that way. You are essentially advocating ignorance. And that is okay for you to do, but it should not be presented as something else–for example, something reasonable.
Joe,
Since in the absence of any probative scientific or physical evidence of its veracity (or in the presence of what you find to be compelling evidence of its falsity), you find it “unreasonable” to believe in a 6-day creation narrative; do you also find it “unreasonable” to believe that any of the Biblically recorded miracles, including the conception of Jesus without human sperm, or any of His miracles, and/or His resurrection and ascension, actually took place—given the absence of any scientific or physical evidence that such things are/were possible?
Yes, one would believe. And not only one, but millions believe. What is belief for many, is not evidence for many. Unles one is able to differentiate between "belief" and "factual evidence" there will still be many who equate belief with fact. Remember: beliefs belong to individual, facts are .public.
Dear Miracle doubters, dear Biblical historicity doubters, dear Devil doubters, dear Creation doubters, dear Ellen White doubters, dear Evolution doubters, dear Science doubters, dear Love doubters, dear Reason doubters, dear Logic doubters, dear Doubters all right and left and out of the park all together…..
None of this is important, I'll give it all away to each and any of you, except one, here is the bottom line and the only important one —
Did Jesus of Nazareth die upon a cross, and spend the Sabbath in a tomb, and did he resurrect on Sunday morning?
All the other questions have no meaning apart from the historicity of Jesus and his resurrection. If this is a firm no, then please consider finding another blog to enlighten. If this is a maybe or I'm willing to find out, or a yes of course, then argue on Sister and Brother, we may not be on the same page, but at least we are in the same park.
This the truth I find incontrovertible. As Winston Churchill said, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is.
The rest of my ideas are all derivitive, of little or secondary importance, and I cede them all to you. But not this one.
Jack,
Interesting concept: You can pick what you believe at will and talk about it. But unless they agree with YOU, others can't have the same luxury.
Does it really make sense to you?
Jack,
If Jesus' teachings are ignored, all the miracles are meaningless. Not believing the miracles reported fades into insignificance by the force and simplicity of his teachings.
Was Martin Luther King's life more important than the message he fought and died for? Was Gandhi's lifestyle more important than his message? Which is more important: the messenger or the message? And why must they both be accepted LITERALLY?
Au contraire, IF the miracle of Jesus life and death and resurrection are not true, his teachings are meaningless. He would have no more authority as the Way, the Truth, the Life, than you do!
I would say: probably not, to the point of being extremely unlikely.
To quote Dawkins on this, and associated questions about Jesus and miracles (bold added) :
"….There is an answer to every such question, whether or not we can discover it in practice, and it is a strictly scientific answer. The methods we should use to settle the matter, in the unlikely event that relevant evidence ever became available, would be purely and entirely scientific methods."
At this point in time, there is no reliable, empirically verifiable evidence to determine the answer, but if some turns up to push it more convincingly in either direction, all the better.
Jack, may I suggest that because of the nature of history, even though it is almost certainly a "no", there is always room for more evidence, so the answer should remain a "maybe". On the next possible answer you offer: "willing to find out". I think most here are NOT willing to find out, because it would be a life and faith shattering experience to find that the evidence for it is essentially non existent. The evidence against it is inversely compelling.
Jack,
I've been reflecting on your question. I'm going to give you another answer to chew on.
Functionally: NO, Jesus never existed, died or rose from the dead.
What do I mean? I will not dismiss the possibility that your incontrovertible happened, but the possibility of such is so low that it should not affect the way I live my life in regard to all the trappings that supposedly go with it being "fact". It is like saying that the massive caldera in Yellowstone National Park may go up tomorrow, and on that basis the park is shut down and the USA put on standby for evacuation. NO. The possibility of it going up any particular day is so low that it does not affect the way people act, travel, tour, camp etc etc.
Thus it is with Jesus' as a real person etc. The functional answer is that the possibility is so out of the park that we should go on living as if it were a NO.
Now, having said that, there is no reason I cannot take from the Jesus myth central and usefull teachings to shape into my life. eg. The golden rule. If I want to take those principles and define them as "Christian" because they are reflected in the Christ myth, that should be no problem to you or anyone else. When it becomes a problem is when people load on all the baggage that the Jesus plot was not intended to present. All the accretions of the millennia.
If humanity cannot peruse the data of history as man has evolved into a social creature and wisely collect from that pointers to what makes, and does not make, a healthy society – we will be the poorer for it. But, load ourselves down with the burdens of mistaken myth of the centuries? NO. Let us choose wisely from the wealth of myth on offer. Choose through the lens of science, not illusion. Too many people live their lives on standby for evacuation!
Chris, I imagine you have read about Mithra, Mithras, and Mithraism. For those who have not, this is one of several mystical mythical traditions that predated early Christianity. The stories are awfully similar. Coincidence? Probably not…. And what a fine topic for discussion during easter week.
Given the historical and cultural realities of paganism and heathenism generally, why should we find it at all significant that there are similar stories or descriptions of other so-called deities in pagan and heathen culture?
Which came first? I wonder if we might need to revise our views of some scriptures as just "Uncle John's [Luke's, Matthew's] Bedtime Stories" maybe based on various fables.
Since the narrative of Abraham and his descendants begin or are set around 2000 B.C. and the extra-Biblical texts for the story of Job also appear around that time; and the story of Noah seems to go back another 2,000 years or so (and we also know that Noah had a fairly well documented ancestral tree); it’s possible that in many cases the Biblical versions may have been the originals.
Not that this would make any difference if you don’t believe any are true.
Stephen, the only information we have about Abraham and his descendants as well as Job can be found ONLY in the Bible; there are no other secular confirmations: something that all good historical evidence finds necessary. For those reasons, the stories of Homer, Herodotus, and others who were reportedly written later, are never accepted as literal facts, but liberally adapted at the writers' desired.
Why should we accept the Bible as an exception to all other contemporary literature as being pristine pure and absolutely literal accounts? All ancient tales glorified and exaggerated their stories to produce national pride in their heroes, but whether Odysseus and Helen of Troy were real people can never be confirmed. Just as Abraham, Noah, and Job can never be considered factual.
But why should we consider facts in moral tales? Was there really a tower of Babel; or Samson; or a Goliath with proportions as recorded? Older tales (Athrahasis) is one of several Sumerial flood stories with very similar details; Sargon was saved by his mother's preparing a reed basked put on a river and later adopted by a royal heiress.
As for ancestral trees: how accurate are the genealogies of Jesus given in Matthew and Luke?
If you, or anyone is able to separate myth from the Bible: good luck!
Why do Christians seem to put greater emphasis on the reality of the miracle of the virgin birth, resurrection, and others miracles while giving less importance to the teachings and principles attributed to Jesus and the apostles? Is Christianity merely a belief in miracles, or is it based on trying to emulate the principles found in the NT? Would Christianity lose by teaching the latter and minimizing the former?
We are arguing about accounts that can never be proved; yet the advice found in the Bible is what should be the reason and standard of our lives. We have ignored the major ideals and emphaisized the impossible validation of miracles. It's like criticizing Rembrandt for his choice of subjects while ignoring his masterful ability to convey lifelike impressions.
Very simply Elaine, the reason why I am focusing on Biblical miracles is because we are discussing why the Genesis creation account is believed despite scientific and material evidence that it could not have occurred.
My point is that scientific and physical evidence also militate against the truth that the other scripturally recorded supernatural acts indeed occurred; yet most Christians believe they did.
Stephen,
Have you considered that perhaps the reason your "most" Christians continue to believe that the other recorded supernatural events occurred is for similar reasons as to why you continue to believe?
And what might yours be? I'll let you tell us if you want, rather than guessing:), though, if I recall right you have said it is simply a choice of "faith", not fact. If that is the case, why do you question their credulity/logic, when yours is built on the same base?
Chris,
I would think and hope that my fellow believers continue to believe that the miracles recorded in the Bible actually occurred for the same reasons that I do; and I would hope that they too have chosen faith based on something.
Where we perhaps differ is that it appears that you believe that faith in God and belief that the miracles in the Bible actually occurred is based strictly on tradition; and I believe that such faith is based on personal experience in the light of historically based religious doctrine.
As an example, you claim and apparently now believe that Jesus of Nazareth was not an actual, historical individual, who lived.
You do not believe that to be historical “fact;” whereas the vast majority of Christian believers (here in 2013 A.D.) believe Him to have been an historical figure.
Personally, given what I have received, seen, witnessed, experienced, and learned (largely through experience) in terms of love, grace, and answers to prayer; and what I have witnessed in the lives of others who have shown love for God, their fellow man, and me, not to mention the numerous close calls with death and/or injury that I have witnessed and known, etc. I would be an idiot not to believe.
This is also reinforced by the blessing I have received in the appreciation of the spoken (preached) gospel of Jesus Christ. Hearing the Bible preached from so many different angles and seeing it lived by so many people has a convincing effect.
Now, clearly this doesn’t explain everything for everyone; and doesn’t address the awful realities of sickness, death, cruelty, war, starvation, and poverty—just the proverbial big picture. But you just asked me why I believe.
The great controversy narrative of the Bible happens to make sense from my perspective. But I can only speak for myself.
Stephen Foster: 'What is a “trickster God”? Whose definition is that? How would anyone ‘classify”’ or ‘categorize’ a God who ‘performed’ the miracles or otherwise inexplicable acts of supernatural, I repeat supernatural, acts recorded in the Bible?'
I guess I come from it from another angle.
I do believe in supernatural events. Black holes are 'supernatural' as was the Big Bang, because these are places or events outside of the realm of time and space, where the laws of physics break down. Thus, they the scientific method can't be used to explain those places or events. And yet, no serious scientist would suggest black holes or the Big Bang was not real or just a trick. So the question is – how to we know truth?
The problem I have with what you were saying previously Stephen about the creation of the lion's teeth is that it has no observable basis in anything – not in science, in logic, in experience or even in the Bible itself. If the Bible is silent or ambiguous on a matter, such as the age of the earth (God chose not to explicitly say that), and science, logic and experience shows it is old, very old, why would one adopt a biblical interpretation that has no basis in anything but one's interpretation of scripture, which is actually tradition.
It doesn't make any sense to me why God would 'magically' change a lion's tooth carnivorous, and it doesn't make sense why a Christian would support that view, when it isn't supported in any source of divine revelation – not even in the Bible.
Similarly, people use to read certain ambiguous texts as pointing to a flat earth or where the earth was centre of the universe. What changed? Why does no serious person think that world is actually still flat but creates a 'miracle' every time we tavel on a ship or plane to just make it look round? That would just be silly wouldn't it? And yet there is probably more biblical evidence for that riddiculous proposition than the notion say that God magically put millions of years of fossils in the ground or suddenly changed the lion's tooth.
So how do we know truth? For me, there are a range of sources of divine knowledge: scripture, logic, reason, experience, revelation and indeed science. They actually help interpret each other. If there are two interpretations of scripture, one that accords with other sources of divine knowledge, and another which is totally contradictory to it, why would one simply reject outright the former and call heretic the one who accepts the latter. And yet that is what people like President Wilson and Clifford Goldstein are doing, per their regular articles in Adventist World and the SS lesson pamphlet.
Stephen: 'I do not understand how those who believe that God chose to be born of a virgin, and turned water into wine, and walked on water in liquid form, and changed the weather by His voice, and fed 10-15,000 people with one child’s lunch, or gave sight to one born blind, or resurrected dead people, etc., do not consider these equivalent to ‘tricks.’'
The other interesting thing about biblical miracles is that the causes appear to be miraculous, but the effect tend to be very much demonstrateable. There is probably no better example than the resurrection of Jesus itself. He was raised by miraculous means, which may not be as 'supernatural' as we think but rather at a level so above us that science and supernatural events meet – again like black holes or the Big Bang.
And yet (assuming it really happened, for sceptics just go with me on this one), Christ's resurrection was very much an observable 'scientific' event. Christ took pains to show he had a real, physical body. He allowed His disciples to poke Him and he ate food. And importantly, the physical scars of the Cross were still in His hands.
So the question is, was Christ's body scientifically 'real' even though it was caused by a 'supernatural' event? Or was perhaps his resurrected physical body just a 'trick', an 'illusion', as the early Gnostic heresy of Docetism promoted?
Thus, I am happy to have a discussion about the supernatural origins of life on this planet. And yet, the 'scars' of the earth, in the fossil record and elsewhere, of the pain and death that was necessary to create our lives, is as much on evidence. Moreover, even if one believes the earth was created 2 seconds ago by God, who simply imprinted memories into our minds, that does not change the fact that science is correct in observing the earth as being millions of years old.
For me, in the same way as Christ's resurrected body was real and not simply a Docestist trick, I am not sure what God would have to gain, and thus why He would do it, to create the trick or a world that appears millions of years old.
That quizzical statement about miracles being equivalent to ‘tricks’ was obviously directed at you Stephen, in that you believe those miracles to have occurred yet feel a need to reconcile the earth’s age as scientifically guessed by man with the Biblical record.
Christ’s resurrected body left no more evidence for those who did not witness it than did any of His miracles for those who did not personally witness them.
With respect, I frankly remain totally baffled by your thought process in this matter.
This lion’s tooth thing needs to be reviewed, as you seem to consider that probative; and I dismissed it rather cavalierly.
Obviously I do not definitively know how sharp teeth developed in carnivorous animals; but I believe them to have evolved. The difference is I do not believe that it took millions or billions, or even tens of thousands of years for this to happen, and you apparently now do.
As I’ve indicated previously, evolution and devolution are two sides of the same coin in terms of things changing since creation. If one believes that devolution has occurred, one must believe that evolution is possible. I also believe that we have no way of knowing how long the earth existed “without form and void” before Creation, so I don’t consider “appearances” that the earth itself is old to be significant/trickery.
Does that clarify my position at all?
Chris broke open one of his sulfur capsules on this thread a couple of days ago to warn us, in so many words, that, as long as Christians take the Bible seriously as a revelation of God to humanity, they will have no credibility with "thinking" people, Chris of course being the prototypical thinking person.
I Don't know if Chris is still following comments on this blog, but reading through his comments, I can't help but wonder if he accepts that people just as intelligent and well-informed as he, just as well-adjusted and perhaps even more open to other viewpoints, have come to very different conclusions. Why all the posturing? Evolutionary theories are just that – theories – inferences that science cannot verify, drawn from various types of evidence. Jack offers alternative inferences that can be drawn from the evidence, inferences which likewise can be neither proven nor disproven by science. I can assure Chris that most of his conscious life has been lived around assumptions which defy a coherent evolutionary or scientific explanation.
Each time Chris comments to scorn the intelligence and character of those who question his scientistic dogma, or who see a reality beyond the epistemological tools of science, he reminds me of how intolerant, limiting, and narrow secular materialism really is. His arrogant, derisive comments bring to mind a sign I remember seeing in our neighbor's swimming pool when I was young: "We don't swim in your toilet; please don't pee in our pool."
Why can't we have respect for other people who think and believe differently? We are all equal here in the U.S. as well as before God. Surely, if it had been intended we were all alike, we would be created that way.
Nathan,
I can be blunt at times, I recognise that. But toxic? That was not my intention, so I'm sorry if it came over that sharp.
I take it the line that offended you most was this: "…if Christians are to find any credibility with the scientific world, and thinking people,.."
The reason I chose such terminology, is that, as I understand it, Jack has set out on his journey into attempting to reconcile an OEC concept with his faith because he fears we/Christians/Adventism, will lose credibility with thinking people if we don't.
He happens to agree with you and you with he on ID, thus you take no offence at his motivation or reason for his efforts.
I happen to go further in trying to reconcile with science and the need for intellectual integrity. but because you so violently disagree with my "conclusions" you take offence at the reasons I give.
Strange how the same motivation underlies Jack's attempts, and probably drives your decision to accept ID, and an old earth with sin outside the garden! etc. All of which are anathema to most conservatives inside Adventism. And, I dare to say that you would quietly admit to yourself that you consider YEC diehards have not thought it through well. Of course, we won't dare suggest that it is time they started thinking about the real issues will we?
No Chris, the same motivation does Not underlie Jack's attempts and your attempts.
Jack is motivated to help lovers of Christ fall deeper in love with him. You to my great dismay have stated that you have bypassed Christ as any reality in your life. I am sorry, but we really have very little in common in motivation and aims and I must take care to make that clearer in the future than I have in the past, for the sake of readers of these blogs.
Stephen Foster: 'Obviously I do not definitively know how sharp teeth developed in carnivorous animals; but I believe them to have evolved. The difference is I do not believe that it took millions or billions, or even tens of thousands of years for this to happen, and you apparently now do.'
What I find interesting about these common YEC arguments is that where YEC usually say, 'If evolution were true why don't we see it happening today,' their own model actually requires super-rappid evolution. We have examples of lions in ancient caves and from the earliest literature of humanity – going back thousands of years.
It seems lions have not evolved or devolved in some 3,000 years or more. We seem to have evidence of that. If the world is only 6,000 years old, then lions must have evolved-devolved carnivourous teeth in just 3,000 years or less. If we take the book of Job as pre-Flood, as some believe, then the reference to certain beasts like the Leviathan clearly had carnivourous teeth even before the flood – see Job 41:14!
So when and how did the lion's teeth change so quickly – it just say 1,000 or so years? So let's put the YEC claim back on themselves – how could evolution-devolution occur so quickly? Is Satan that powerful? If changes can happen so quickly, then why don't we such such rappid changes today?
'I also believe that we have no way of knowing how long the earth existed “without form and void” before Creation, so I don’t consider “appearances” that the earth itself is old to be significant/trickery.'
Stephen, I find this argument is at least more convincing. It should be remembered that science isn't about what is, it is about what can be observed using the scientific method. It would be much better for the YEC cause if it just came out an admitted that science doesn't support YEC, and that YEC can only believed by faith despite science.
I agree we don't know how long it was before creation week started. We also don't know exactly what really was involved in that voidless and formless state. However, your notion about a world filled without void or form, perhaps billions of years in that state, seems to be a small step away from YEC.
For the avoidance of doubt, I don't positively believe in any particular theory of origins. Rather, I merely question the YEC model I have been taught since childhood. I would love to be convinced of the YEC, but the GRI of the GC seems to be doing a pretty terrible job at that so far, despite millions of dollars in tithe being spent.
Again, we can believe in miracles, and the creation of life itself is a miracle, but I do struggle with the notion that God would create billions of years of the fossil record as a trick. There are miracles, but mircales still demonstrate a physical reality, as Christ's resurrected body was real, not merely an illusionary trick as the Docetist-Gnostics taught.
It seems to me Brother Ferguson that you make a few assumptions to come to the conclusions regarding the approximate time of Creation week that you do, whatever they are; or to counter the statements that I’ve made regarding lion teeth.
For example, I haven’t questioned why we don’t see evolution occurring now, because I believe that there is rapid evolution occurring now.
You also assume that we know how much lion’s teeth have changed, which presumes that we know what they looked like initially, which of course we do not.
You may not buy my admittedly crude evidence that evolution is rapidly occurring, or can rapidly occur; but here it is. (And remember, I believe that if devolution is a reality, then evolution is possible.)
I am a big time sports fan. It is clearly evident that in most, if not all athletic endeavors, today’s athletes are bigger, faster, stronger, quicker, then they were 100 years ago, or even 75 years ago, or even 50 years ago. Training methods, equipment, and conditions, and nutrition undoubtedly account for some of this; as does the casting of a larger net of or for athletic prospects and participants.
But this does not account for all of it. For example, I attended Oakwood College (now Oakwood University) in the early-mid 1970’s. When I was a student, no one was dunking in intramural basketball games—because no one could. Mind you, we had a number of very good athletes who were well over six feet tall.
Fast forward some 25-30 years later, and lo and behold dunking in pick-up games is all but commonplace, even among some students of well below average male height.
I know this sounds laughable, but compare recent world and Olympic records to even 30 or 40 years ago.
Certainly, medical, scientific, and nutritional advances obviously account for much of this as does culture and cultural emphasis; but so does a form of multi-generational physical adaptation in my opinion.
Is the average height of adults in ethnically homogeneous societies like China the same now as it was 150 years ago?
So what does this have to do with lion teeth? The point is that rapid change over hundreds or thousands of years certainly appears quite plausible to me.
You made another assumption that Satan is the cause of physical devolution. My understanding is that Satan was the original sinner; but sin is the cause of death.
It seems to me that, in your approach, if you really “would love to be convinced of the YEC” (whatever that may mean to you), that you might consider holding some of your assumptions gently; as our friend Joe Erwin might say.
Jack,
No worries. I thought your early blogs on this topic etc indicated your motivation as I noted. Sorry I got it wrong? mmm
Your first blog in 2012 was about the importance of thinking!
Your second blog "But God-permitted change has to be on the table. And chronology is fully up for debate. Don’t shut that debate down with unfair labels."
From within your 3rd blog: "What I want to say is—real Adventists, faithful, vegetarian, tithe-payers– can understand creation took longer and is more complex than we used to believe, and still be Adventists. And to try and suppress change and growth in understanding of our core doctrines is not only unnecessary, but also very, very dangerous.?
And why is it dangerous? Stephen Furguson commented on your point thus: "We need people like you Jack, to start asking those big questions, about IF evolution is true, how can be reconcile that with our fundamental beliefs without throwing the baby out with the bath water. To that extent, I really appreciate your efforts, and those like you, who put themselves out there by at least asking the question." And you made no objection to this. What, glad to get people thinking?
You did say this a little further down: "The Adventist traditional understanding of a short chronology for creation is a stumbling block for believers unable to ignore the accumulating solid evidence for an old earth. " Bold mine.
And this one takes the cake: "Those of us who once were blind, but now see, have an obligation to show how the present truth about creation enhances Adventism as a movement, and our personal relationship with Jesus."
Yes, you have Jesus in there, but you were blind, now you see! You now have to help others see? And you get on my case for suggesting I got the impression you wanted to help others think?
I could go on through your blogs, but I'm wasting time now….
and, yes, I've just read your comment about "we" and "them", and I'm cross with your attitude….:( So, If I'm sounding blunt or cross I am. I'm sure you're a great boke Jack, but you are no more an arbiter of truth than any other person. But, then, you were blind and now you see.
And I'm blind because you say so……
Stephen Foster: 'Fast forward some 25-30 years later, and lo and behold dunking in pick-up games is all but commonplace, even among some students of well below average male height.'
Stephen I'm no scientist, so don't mistake any of my statements as being good science, because they probably are not. However as to your example, I would have thought the changes in the last few years in human athletic performance has more to do with human nutrition and performance-enhancing drugs – not genetics.
It wasn't uncommon for medieval princes and nobles to be much taller than those around them due to the better nutrition they received. The problem of too much food is a relatively recent problem. I doubt there was even hormones in the chicken our great-grandparents ate. Similarly, no one seems to suffer from rickets these days.
The only sort of rapid animal evolution that I am aware of is human-engineering or cloning, which we commonly call domestication. Sine the Neolithic evolution about 10,000 years ago, there has been rapid evolutionary changes in a very few species of animals and plants. Science attests to this but most importantly so does the Bible in Gen 4:20.
However, I can't find any evidence, either in science, or in the Bible, as to how the lion supposedly got its carnivorous teeth. Can you please show me the text? As I noted above, how did the Leviathan get its ferocious teeth, as Job (who may pre-date the flood) attestes in Job 41:14.
So how did these rappid changes in animals from supposedly herbivores to carnivors occur? Where is the evidence in science, in the fossil record of a plant-eating lion? More importantly, why is the Bible comptely silent on the supposed rapid evolution-devolution of plants and animals – of the lion's teeth and rose's thorns?
You attempted to tick me off just before with some righteous indignation for making assumptions. So likewise, why do so many Christians make the assumption that there were no carnivors outside of Eden, in the Wilderness, when the Bible doesn't seem to say anything about the matter? And why do we assume there was no death in that Wilderness when the Bible doesn't actually say that? Why do we assume there was no death in the world in that Wilderness when the Bible doesn't actually say that? Why are a whole bunch of assumptions made, and then dogmatically defended, on things the Bible is silent about? I believe that is much of Jack's point.
Happy to be corrected on any of these points if you can show me from the scriptures. That's all I ask.
Obviously I am no scientist either, Stephen. But I seriously doubt that steroid use accounts for so many little guys (under six feet tall) dunking at Oakwood University.
This is undoubtedly silly to our scientist friends, and really it is rather silly in any case; even from my perspective.
I hope I’m not assuming anything that the Bible does not say; which would be classic speculation, by definition. For instance the Bible doesn’t say, indicate or hint how old the earth is. However you want me to “show [you] from the scriptures” when it is the scriptural account of things that you have been questioning.
In the final analysis I just hope and pray that you and the esteemed Dr. Hoehn will notice the slope you are on in attempting to appease the scientific community or somehow reconcile their “findings.” It isn’t God who is tricking anyone.
We may have to agree to disagree.
Better nutrition and natural selection can account for the increased height and measure of humans today. However, it is not height that has society's concern but width. The obesity epidemic, not height, is causing earlier death in civilized nations where the abundance of processed foods is consumed.
As for athletic height: what is the longevity of sports enthusiast, especially football and physicially traumatic games? More brain damage=earlier Alzheimer's and death; not to consider the prolific steroid and blood enhancing substances used by many.
Perhaps you can give us some Bible texts showing that "God's ideal" was unlike what is seen in carnivores like lions today? Where is there evidence of plant eating lions?
Hi Elaine, yes I would be happy to share a few verses. The following is from a sermon of a few Months ago.
The Creator, before he created, took responsibility for “all” the effects of freedom that ‘open creation’ would unleash in human society. God did this by punishing himself on the Cross, taking the responsibility for our sin. God did this from the beginning. “Foreordained before the foundation of the world, but manifested at the end of time for your sake." I Pet. 1:20
"The Lamb . . . was slain from the foundation of the world." Rev. 13:8
We see from these verses that The Creator, from his eternity, saw and re-acted to the sin situation before it actually ‘happened’ in the stream of earth-based time!
If this were not so then when mankind first sinned, mankind would have died “that very day.” Gen. 2:17.
Symbols of the Cross were placed on mankind before the event the symbols pointed to happened. “Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.” Gen. 3:21
The need for Calvary was “foreknown” and the benefits of the Cross proactively applied. “Who saved us according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ before the world began.” II Tim. 1:9
The reality of the death of Christ on Calvary was pro-actively applied to mankind in the garden, thousands of years before the event. In the same way, the effects of sin (death) were applied to nature before creation.
The Creator, before He created, would foreknow perfectly the negative outcomes due to free choice, and from the beginning He would design nature with the ability to adapt and maintain balance.
Nature was “made subject to vanity, not of its own [God’s] will . . .” Rom. 8:20 This is not referring to Adam but to God.
Death and predation–“Vanity” according to Paul, would be a reality until the “restoration of all things.” Acts 3:21
The Creator, in the final day, would free nature from this “bondage and corruption.” Paul again reminds us, “The creature was made subject to vanity, not of its own will, but by reason of him [God] who subjected the same in hope.” Rom. 8:20
“In Hope!” There is an inner sense in human hearts that something is wrong with this world. There is a sense not only of God, but a strong sense that God is good.
Our desire and hope for a ‘better world’ resonates with Scripture’s promises that “. . . the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.” Rom. 8:21
In the New Creation mankind and all of nature will experience freedom and Perfection[1]–goodness will be realized on earth as it is in heaven. [2]
“The sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.”
“The earnest expectation of the creation waits for the manifestation of the sons of God.” Rom. 8:18-19
Thanks. You have furnished many beautiful sentences, but not one explained the question:
Where was there a single senence declaring lions were somehow immediately changed from carnivores to herbivores? You simply drew an assumption without evidence.
Elaine, I did not say they were changed. Did you mean, from herbivores to carnivores?
Elaine, I did not say they were changed. Did you mean, from herbivores to carnivores?
When Jesus called Lazarus to come forth from the grave he didn't come out as Amoeba Laz-arus or Common Ancestor Laz. As Creator Jesus has the power and authority to create complete beings without any evolutionary means whatsoever – period.
There was no death outside of Eden before the Fall. The Bible makes no inference otherwise. Evolution has no need for God and God has no need for Evolution. Creation and Evolution can't co-exist. Even the Intelligent Design found in the entire natural world is flagrantly denied by evolutionists. To marry the two religions as Dr Hoehn seems bent on is a shotgun wedding indeed.
Stephen: 'I hope I’m not assuming anything that the Bible does not say; which would be classic speculation, by definition. For instance the Bible doesn’t say, indicate or hint how old the earth is. However you want me to “show [you] from the scriptures” when it is the scriptural account of things that you have been questioning… We may just have to agree to disagree.'
Thank you Stephen for your sensible and charitable senitiments.
I think you have some merit in your concerns. If you look at Jack's recent little debate with Chris, there is certainly the danger of letting science be used as a tool to destroy faith. However, I believe Jack has made a very big effort to demonstrate just the opposite – that science doesn't have to be incompatible with scripture. In that the scripture isn't wrong, just perhaps our interpretation of it is, and where we are wrongly mixing our interpretation with what the Bible actually says.
As I have noted several times, the Bible doesn't say that God or Satan caused animals to suddenly evolve-devolve carnivorous teeth after the Fall, or that there was no death at all in the Wilderness outside of Eden, and where the Bible itself only mentions human-engineered domestic animals and plants as undergoing such rapid changes by Cain's children. Thus, something I had always thought was 'biblical' to explain a YEC model seems to be nothing more than baseless speculation relying on tradition, not scripture.
As for slippery slopes, I hear what you are saying. But I have concerns for the opposite. What about the college-age student who goes to university and faced with all the evidence, is convinced of evolution? What of their faith? According to President Wilson and Clifford Goldstein, such a person should leave the SDA Church as it would supposedly not be honest for them to remain – at least that's what they say!
I wonder where people like Joe might be today if the Clifford Goldstein's of the world hadn't poisoned the well for fear of losing control of the water.
Well, I understand and share your concern for the past, present, and future Joe’s of our church, and appreciate that you may take a 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 approach to things; which is admirable and exemplary.
The thing is, Paul said that he had “become all things to all people so that by all possible means [he] might save some;” not that he had come to disbelieve some things for some people; if you know what I mean.
Again with regard to lion teeth, I merely proposed to address your speculative question with what was a speculative answer, since we don’t know what the dental profile of the original lion was; do we? We don’t even know if it was its teeth that evolved as opposed to its digestive tract, or neither, or both.
(What, by the way, did you mean in indicating that I was trying to “tick you off with some righteous indignation for making assumptions”? Was that a joke?)
Whether we agree or disagree, I always admire and appreciate your approach and thinking; even when/if not tracking your thought process.
When God creates the new heavens and new earth [2Pet 3:13; Rev 21:1, 4, 5] will he use evolution processes over millions of years and throw in a few common ancestors or even some amoebas in our line of speciation? Will there still be death?
22', good and legitimate questions. I agree with Stephen Foster insofar as this whole topic is difficult precisely because the Bible doesn't actually say much about a lot of this, and many things we assume to be truth is in fact just our speculative opinion rather than what the Bible actually says. In that sense, it might be hard for any one side to claim the mantle of being absolutely right. However, I hope that also might suggest we be less dogmatic in condemning as heretics for those who hold different views from our own.
After all, a lot of this is just speculation, and if God Himself has not told us the exact answer, we should be cautious of establishing tests of membership and creedal statements on say the age of the earth, when the Bible itself makes no statements about as much. By this comment, I mean the Clifford Goldsteins of the world who say one can't be an SDA if they don't agree the earth is as old or young as he says it is, even though the Bible doesn't make any such statement or establishment any such concept as a dogma awaiting creedal enforcement.
I speculate (got that, speculate) that God will create a new earth the same way as He created heaven – in the blink of an eye. The big problem with the theory of evolution is the obvious question, 'Why couldn't God have created a perfect universe and perfect world instead of the tooth and claw one we see around us?'
I believe the Bible has the answer – He did! God did create a perfect plane of existence – heaven. We don't know much about it, and it may indeed by some sort of parallel universe, fitting in quite well with the origin theories of Richard Dawkins and Steven Hawkings, who very much believe in multi-verses. However, the Bible suggests heaven and its inhabitants are very much static and anti-evolutionary. For example, Jesus makes clear that angels don't procreate.
So what happened? There was a war in heaven, and the tranquility of this perfect, static, anti-evolutionary place fell.
I don't understand the whole picture, but I speculate (again note, speculate) that as a result of Lucifer's challenge, a Job-like scenario ensured. Instead of creating something perfect, like heaven, God allowed a self-evolving universe to exist and form itself. Instead of just creating things directly, He called them out from the earth and waters, as Gen 1 tells us. Perhaps the challenge was that beings would worship God in their own accord, not being merely made to love God, as perhaps Satan challenged?
Perhaps Eden was merely a 'sin-free zone' (to borrow from Jack) and Adam the first homo divinus (to borrow other authors) to freely worship God? Perhaps Adam was tasked to fight and win the Great Controversy on this small world. After all, Adam is given the very evolutionary-like and un-angel-like commands to multiply, to take care of the Garden, and to subdue the wild animals (where domestication of our 'clean' foods is an example of). Perhaps Adam and his descendants were intended to extend the Garden until it completely conquored the Wilderness outside, which actually seems a very sinful place sitting along side Eden.
The Bible seems to suggest that in the end, the evolutionary-struggle human earth will reconcile with the static anti-evolutionary heaven, to form a new heaven and new earth. In it, human beings will be like the angels, neither marrying or procreating. In it, there will be no night or day, as God will be the light. In it, there will be no survival of the fittest through Darwinian struggle, as the lion and lamb will lie down together.
The cosmic struggle of the Great Controversy will come full circle. The Darwinian earth will finally become the anti-evolutionary and static heaven. Part of the reason why so many Christians are against evolution is because I believe in our hearts we sense the Darwinian world around us isn't what it should be like. We mourn a Paradise that never quite was, yet we know it should be. This is the image of God inside of us, which was wounded by never completely destroyed.
Creationists are right in having faith, despite what their own eyes show them, in a world without a tooth-and-claw struggle. The ancients who wrote Genesis sensed the same. The clean animals we eat are an extension of that as well, as an attempt to clip the claws of the wild.
Thus, Creationists are right in having faith in an anti-evoltionary world – just not yet.
To put it another way, if God created angles who are static and celibate, why did He create human beings to have marriage and children? Why did God command Adam to multiply and fill the whole earth, if the earth was already a perfect paradise? Why was there a special garden in Eden at all, if the whole world was a perfect Eden? Where did the Wilderness outside of Eden come from, which seems very un-Eden-like, to which Adam and Eve were expelled?
Why did God need to have human beings created in His own image, to subdue the earth, to care for a garden, and to multiply, if the world was already so perfect? It seems to me that God was recruiting an army to fight a tribal war, with the natural world itself.
Along that thought, wasn't Eden taken up into heaven?
Timo: 'If God's governance (and the denial of lucifer to be allowed to sit the creation tribunal as a created being and not a creator being) is in question, perhaps God needed to-to demonstarte his judgments were fair and non-capricious non-arbitrary judgments. Perhaps creating a "stacked deck" test-tube earth to solve the sin problem without permitting the opportunity for lucifer to prove his case wouod have lost God's case for the untold other creations who are watching the courtroom scene unfolding?'
Yes I personally speculate (again I am not dogmatic just wondering) if that is it. When Satan rebelled in perfect heaven, I can imagine Satan making the same argument he made at the beginning of the book of Job: 'These other angelic beings only love you because you made them to love you.' The evolving universe we now see, both in the cosmos and on this planet, is perhaps God's answer to that accusation.
'Is the apparent static nature of heaven perhaps result of moratorium on creation?'
Timo, not sure if we are agreeing or not. For me, I agree we really have little idea what 'heaven' is exactly. I certainly don't think it is limited to a place with gold streets, or that it is a star base just outside of our solar system, or a planet, or other common ideas.
To me, the closest understanding of heaven is probably the latest theory of origins from the likes of atheist scientists, including Richard Dawkins and Steve Hawkings – multi-verses. I think heaven is probably an alternative universe, and one which pre-dates our own.
I don't think there is a mere moratorium of creation in heaven – I think there is no creation anymore full stop. I think it is by nature static, as evidenced by the static, non-procreating nature of angels, or the notion that in such a place there doesn't seem to be day and night through the cycle of time. I think God probably created heaven complete and perfect on the moment of creation.
'Or would he -reasonably, i surmise-do the unthinkable-despite having eternity to fill infinity, stop creating for a time as he permits that very first prodigal, lucifer, to attempt to create?'
I think part of the message of Gen 1 is that God is still creating, but just in a way we don't quite understand, because He does so very indirectly. The same actually extends to how God intervenes in the world today – indirectly through intermediaries. Unlike the static, ageless, celibate angels, Adam and Eve were commanded to act as God's delegate-creators and fill the earth. Similarly, God actually calls the land and sea to bring forth life on this world.
For me, the highlight of the Gen 1 account is the notion that despite the tooth-and-claw method of origins in this universe, where even human beings are made from dying stars, we can confirm that God is just, and He loves us.
Yes I agree.
It's a very interesting topic to think about. Unfortunately, we usually get so caught up in the usual culture wars that we can't even get to this really interesting stuff.
I think I am beginning to see why such differences exist in ‘interpretation.’ We seem to use our God-given imagination to conjure scenarios about what really transpired in the creation of our world and with regard to the parameters of the great controversy. At least those of us who appear to be blessed with the most fertile imaginations seem to do so.
Would I be (far) off base to speculate that had the good book described different narratives/scenarios for the Creation and great controversy, perhaps even identical to some that we have devised, we might’ve then come up with ones that resemble the versions with which, through inspiration, we’ve already been provided?
Sometimes reality is perhaps not interesting enough.
Trying to fit one box into another box is hardly thinking "outside the box."
A lot of this stuff reads something like this: The Bible says God blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. It doesn't say he didn't do that to the other days, too!!!!!
At the same time God "blessed the Sabbath day" he also blessed and commanded many feast and special days (Lev. 23). Only the Orthodox Jews celebrate those today. Adventists selectively choose which ones to observe; the Israelites had no choice.
Hmmm. Somehow I think you might have mentioned that before . . .
Although typed dialogue on a blog is a bit jagged and unsyncronous, and although it is possible to hi-jack a blog, I want to say that I do appreciate the unlocking of new ideas in these blogs about Heaven, and Creation and the Creator. I appreciate the civil dialogue of the two Stephen's (Foster/Ferguson) and I am pleased to think about both of their thoughts. I appreciate the original, at least to me, ideas from S. Ferguson and Timo about the difference between Gods creation of His universe, and ours. I appreciate very much the sermon notes from Darrell on creation designed from the foundation of the earth to demonstrate the two sides of the controversy between Satan and Christ.
And I agree with Chris that helping Adventist's think and rethink is the motivation for my blogging for the last 2 years. Although the path of broader creationism I am walking will never end in denial of any of the truths of revelation. What the Bible reveals, nature can not tell us. What nature reveals the Bible will not contradict, there is one God and one Truth.
And brother October 22, you are right, godless evolution is a non-starter. But so is YEC, so lets meet in the middle some place?
Beautiful morning in Walla Walla. He IS risen!
TS: 'If Creation is not accepted as delineated in a thus saith the Lord in Genesis how can the person be ready for acceptance into the Body of Christ Who Himself participated in Creation?'
This comment probably better belongs on one of the other articles about evolution, but I suspect there is a lot TS believes, including about origins, that is not supported by 'Thus saith the Lord.' The list includes, just on the topic of origins:
The point being, I am sure there is much in TS’ belief (especially a whole lot based on E White and not the Bible), that relies on something other than ‘Thus saith the Lord.’
For me, that is not a problem, because whilst I believe in the primacy of scripture, I do believe in other lesser sources of divine knowledge, including: revelation (i.e. including E White), experience, tradition (including Adventist heritage), social science (which we rely on at every Digging up the Past seminar), physical science and reason.
But for those like TS, I would respectfully submit that whilst he (or she) likes to pretend to have a faith based only on sola scriptura, I suspect he hypocritically bases much of his religion on sources other than the Bible.
Stephen: 'I think I am beginning to see why such differences exist in ‘interpretation.’ We seem to use our God-given imagination to conjure scenarios about what really transpired in the creation of our world and with regard to the parameters of the great controversy. At least those of us who appear to be blessed with the most fertile imaginations seem to do so.'
True Stephen. One could argue the notion of the Trinity is a mere 'conjuring', based on very limited scriptural speculation. Whereas the word 'Trinity' is found nowhere in the NT itself, a few scant Bible texts are combined with philosophy and reason to come up with quite a comprehensive and systematic doctrine of one ousia (essence) in three hypostasis (subjective beings). And yet which Christians today would mock the doctrine of the Trinity, which is one of the 28 FBs of the SDA Church?
As for these discussions on origins, as we have discussed, the Bible itself is very vague on a range of topics, which is why imagination is often used to fill in the gaps. Perhaps there is no better example that the imaginative speculation, which we have now examined, that Satan (or God) supposedly engaged in some rappid exercise of evolution-devolution soon after the fall, to produce the lion's and Leviathan's ferocious teeth , or the rose's thorns. Whereas, despite this being a popular YEC myth (and even if you Stephen deny it, it is a common YEC belief), it is a belief nonetheless found nowhere in the Bible. Yet the concept is now a mainstay of YEC systematic theology, probably because since the discovery of the fossil records, only this imaginative 'conjuring' can answer that problem.
For me personally, whilst I believe in sola scriptura, where the Bible is silent or ambiguous on a subject, I am happy to use other lesser sources of divine knowledge to cast light on the Bible. This includes: revelation, experience, social science, physical science, philosophy and reason.
The truth is, Adventists believe and use 'lesser lights' all the time themselves – every time they quote Ellen White (revelation) or say the Ten Tribes of post-Roman Europe represent the ten toes (social sciences). The only problem is, given the ambiguities in the story of origins in Gen 1-3, Adventists simply refuse to rely on lesser lights, and then absurdly and hypocritically make claims 'We need to rely just on the Bible here.'
'Sometimes reality is perhaps not interesting enough.'
An apt observation Stephen. Some might say you are accurately describing the whole basis behind the YEC paradigmn. Modern science seems to suggest that as a matter of fact, or reality, that the universe is billions of years old, and life evolved over millions of years on this earth, and where the Bible is ambiguous or silent about the age of the earth. And yet in light of that reality, YECs seem intent on inventing a whole new reality for themselves, not necessarily wholly based on the Bible, but as much based on their own speculative and imaginative conjuring.
Confronted with two possible interpretations of the Bible, the YEC ironically chose the one inconsistent with reality as suggested by the lesser sources of divine knowledge like science, rather than choose the one wholly consistent with science. Explain that YEC decision? It seems to be based on fear and tradition – not the Bible or reason.
New heaven and new earth?
And whilst I am speculating about origins, especially the nature of static heaven that pre-dated evolving earth, and where I made it very clear several times I was merely speculating, but pointed to 'lesser lights' such as the latest scientific theories such as multi-verses to shed light on biblical ambiguities, I ask you all to ponder the following interesting passage in Rev 21:1:
Why is there not just a new earth, but a new heaven also?
And why is this new earth so heaven-like, filled with new sun-evolving humans who are like angels, free from procreating, and on a world without days and nights? Does this represent some sort of future reconcilliation between heaven's perfect static reality and our evolving nature of existence.
"And brother October 22, you are right, godless evolution is a non-starter. But so is YEC, so lets meet in the middle some place?" [Dr Hoehn]
———
Hardly Sir! Your ‘meet in the middle some place’ is millions of years (of death before sin) away. Evolution itself is a non-starter. It is Creation that is taught in the Bible which teaches that it took just six literal days for God to accomplish this. Science Fiction should remain Science Fiction, even though it may make a good read or topic for discussion.
Back to my earlier question about 'a new heaven and a new earth' – Will God use evolution over millions of years to re-create a new heavens and a new earth? Or will it be done like He did the first time when He included the Sabbath Day too? This time hopefully 'we' will also be witnesses together with Jesus at this momentous occasion when He does what He does best: He Creates.
EGW:
'It is Creation that is taught in the Bible which teaches that it took just six literal days for God to accomplish this. Science Fiction should remain Science Fiction, even though it may make a good read or topic for discussion.'
Yes indeed, creation is taught in the Bible. As for your YEC interpretation of the Bible, the Bible itself is less than clear on the specifics of how and when and how long it actually took. I believe Philo of Alexandria and the Church Father Origen both struggled with the YEC model some 2,000 years ago, and the evidence from 'lesser lights' of divine knowledge have only increased those doubts in suggesting the best possible way of reading the ambiguities of the Gen account.
Indeed, the world was created in six literal days, but the Bible itself is less than clear on whether they are mere 'human-days' of 24-hour periods or 'God-days' of longer periods of time.
As for science fiction, the YEC arguably requires a lot of extra-biblical speculation itself, including arguments as to how, in the face of contradictory scientific explanation:
Some of the stuff coming out to explain YEC in the face of contradictory and frankly overwhelming scientific consensus, seems like science fiction (or some might simply say wishful thinking) if you ask me.
Jack with all the respect; in what is not written (we don’t know) only we can speculated, but the concept of “death before sin” can’t be supported by the simple or exegetical reading of the Bible. There is an overwhelming direct support for the concept “sin before death”. The Bible is very clear saying “all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so. It is logical to conclude that predation (among all the “beasts” or other animals) was not the source of food, fuel or fun.
Stephen,
The thing about reality, or the difference in my perception of reality and yours, is that I perceive that God always ‘thought’ that mankind can handle it. Whereas some believe that mankind could never understand or handle reality about (man’s) origins, purpose, and destiny; others believe God intentionally designed man to understand and receive it. Somewhat ironically, we both believe ourselves to be in the latter category or grouping.
I understand you to believe that other sources of revelation include those sources that question or deny His existence; including sources which interpret fossil records in such manner.
Now I will use a term (Godless) that is not designed to be provocative but inevitably seems to be, under most circumstances. I only mean it for the purposes that some of our agnostic friends would, from the standpoint of intentional/purposeful disregard.
You appear to regard Godless physical and/or social science, and Godless philosophy and human reasoning and experience as reliable lesser sources of divine knowledge, that all cast light on the Bible; while I reject that.
You consider that long term evolution explained by Godless science is the only reasonable or rational explanation for the evident physical characteristics of carnivorous animals, or their existence; and that this is representative of reality.
My preferred approach is to avoid speculating about that which Scripture is apparently silent, like the development of predatory animals and characteristics or the age of the earth; although I my experience and human reasoning affords me the prerogative of doing so.
Our friends Chris and (perhaps) Joe are right in that there is no reconciling of Godless science/'revelation' with divinely inspired revelation.
'You appear to regard Godless physical and/or social science, and Godless philosophy and human reasoning and experience as reliable lesser sources of divine knowledge, that all cast light on the Bible; while I reject that.'
Yes of course I believe this. Doesn't this what the Bible itself teaches per such passages as Rom 2 or Rom 5?
Wasn't the first thing God got Adam to do was name all the animals, which is classification and characterisation, which is the essence of science?
Pick up any Adventist publication, and it is full of science to support our beliefs and practices. You will see references to the latest medical knowledge to support SDA wholist teachings. You will see references to history and archaeology in support of Adventist understandings of prophecy. You will see references to psychological and sociological research supposedly in support of our views about Christian lifestyle and family. We use 'science' (in its broadest sense) all the time – ALL THE TIME Stephen. It is what we do and what the pioneers have done since our foundation.
Stephen are you seriously suggesting that science (which I use in its broadest sense, and what the ancients would have called philsophy) cannot be a 'lesser light' of divine knowledge, that can help clarify ambiguities or other 'stumbling blocks' in the scriptures? And is you argument because some people use those areas of knowledge for an atheistic purpose?
Do I refrain from using history because some misuse it to promote say White Supremecy and other bizarre theories? Do I refrain from relying on medicine because it is used by certain US States to execute prisioners? Of course not. The same goes for arguing science cannot be a lesser light because it does not support certain people's interpretation of the Bible.
'You consider that long term evolution explained by Godless science is the only reasonable or rational explanation for the evident physical characteristics of carnivorous animals, or their existence; and that this is representative of reality.'
To be honest Stephen, I have no fixed views about origins and which model is preferrable. All I know is that I doubt YEC and the typical cliche answers don't do much to satisfy me. However, as to which model I would choose, all I know is that the issue is more complex than the simplistic answers we have first thought.
I know that may sound like a slight distinction, to me it is an important one. I am still very much open to all theories, if they can be supported.
'My preferred approach is to avoid speculating about that which Scripture is apparently silent, like the development of predatory animals and characteristics or the age of the earth; although I my experience and human reasoning affords me the prerogative of doing so.'
Whilst you might not think you are speculating, your own assumptions, such as that a day means a 24-hour period, are nothing more than its own type of speculation based on tradition as we were taught from childhood. As Adventists, we were taught that in prophecy that 1 day=1 year, whereas as other Christians were taught that 1 day=1 day (which is why many Dispensationalists believe the Tribulation will be 7 literal years).
We speculate all the time on a whole range of biblical topics where the Scriptures are silent or ambiguous. The list could include: the Trinity (not explicit in the NT), life-after-death (where the OT and NT has some pretty unclear passages) or women's ordination for that matter (which is totally silent on that specific issue). It is pretty hard to just keeping one's head in the sand.
So we all speculate in our assumptions. For me personally, I want to accept YEC, because that would be a lot easier. But forgetting the overwhelming scientific consensus (which is pretty hard to ignore), the more one looks at the scriptures, the more one notices the biblical problems and unanswered questions with a YEC view.
'Our friends Chris and (perhaps) Joe are right in that there is no reconciling of Godless science/'revelation' with divinely inspired revelation.'
Well with respect to Joe and Chris, they are wrong if they have that view. Stephen, if you truly believed that as well, you wouldn't trust modern medicine (like the Christian Scientists do), and frankly wouldn't believe in SDA eschatology, as most of our prophetic interpretations rely on 'science' (archaeology, history and politics).
You make an excellent point when you ask “And is your argument because some people use those areas of knowledge for an atheistic purpose?” This is partially correct.
Actually, you have smoked me out Stephen. In trying not be provocative, I was not totally candid, to tell the truth.
By “Godless,” I actually did mean Godless.
In my humble opinion, any interpretation of scripture that is influenced by the science/conclusions and consensus of atheists is absolutely bogus.
Stephen Foster: 'My preferred approach is to avoid speculating about that which Scripture is apparently silent, like the development of predatory animals and characteristics or the age of the earth; although I my experience and human reasoning affords me the prerogative of doing so.'
I should just say Stephen that if you chose not to speculate on the age of the earth, I totally respect that. The problem is not with you at all, and I apologise if I gave that impression.
The problem is with the Clifford Goldsteins of the world, supported by persons such as President Wilson, who do speculate about the age of the earth, and in fact make their speculations tests of membership, telling people to get out of the Church if they disagree with them on that speculation.
The curretn FB very correctly in my view notes God created the world in 6 days. No one is disputing that. What people are disputing the ambiguities about how God created, and whether 'day' necessarily means 24 hours, when a whole branch of our theological system has very much taught that a day isn't a 24 hour period but symbolically and eschatologically means a much longer period of time.
The problem is that President Wilson wants to go beyond what the Bible actually states and make a particular speculative interpretation of those Bible passages, and make that interpretation as the test of membership. That is the concern.
Stephen,
You’ve heard this previously but I understand the ‘one day with God is as 1,000 years’ simile to be just that, a figure of speech; and prophetically symbolic of nothing (at least to my knowledge).
I think that you have seriously mischaracterized the positions of Clifford Goldstein and Ted Wilson.
I don’t propose to speak for either of them but to suggest that either one of them is promoting what the Bible doesn’t say is patently false. As is any further suggestion that either of them has also made something the Bible doesn’t say a test of membership.
Frankly such charges are simply outrageous.
I should qualify that I reference, and understand you to refer to, Goldstein and Wilson’s interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative.
Stephen Foster: ‘You’ve heard this previously but I understand the ‘one day with God is as 1,000 years’ simile to be just that, a figure of speech; and prophetically symbolic of nothing (at least to my knowledge).’
Stephen, you may or may not be correct on that point. However, that point itself is a speculation, based on a presumption. That question goes to the heart of genre criticism and rhetorical criticism. For example, if I was to say in a scientific textbook, ‘Each human being has 23 pairs of chromosomes’, you would understand that as an exact number. However, if you read in a newspaper, ‘2 billion people watched the Super Bowl,’ we would all know that it is not a scientific meaning of not one person more or a person less than 2 billion. It is the same with the Bible, with many of its passages and phrases.
So on what basis do you say the genre and sitz in laben of Genesis 1-3 suggests it was much understood in a scientific manner? Because going back at least 2,000 years, the Jewish Philosopher Philo of Alexandria and the Church Father Origen (later affirmed by Augustine) certainly didn’t read Genesis 1-3 in such a scientific manner. Origen was the first to note that given the sun and moon were only created on day 4, there may be something deeper to this story than just an attempt at a scientific explanation of origins. In fact, from what I have read and understand, that very literalist way of reading the Bible didn’t really become popular until a few centuries ago.
If Daniel 8:14 says 2,300 ‘evenings and mornings’, why do you presumably say that this figure means something more than 2,300 literal 24-hour days, because there are a whole host of Dispensationalist Christians (many who would support YEC), who think that passage should be understood literally. They might say Adventists are being inconsistent. How does one pick and choose? Who has the ecclesiastical authority to make that choice, even to expel as heretics those who disagree. For the avoidance of doubt, we are talking about people being explicitly or implicitly pressured to leave the SDA Church, not over a dispute about what the Bible says but rather a dispute about what the Bible means.
Stephen Ferguson: ‘The problem is with the Clifford Goldsteins of the world, supported by persons such as President Wilson, who do speculate about the age of the earth, and in fact make their speculations tests of membership, telling people to get out of the Church if they disagree with them on that speculation.’
Stephen Foster: ‘I think that you have seriously mischaracterized the positions of Clifford Goldstein and Ted Wilson. I don’t propose to speak for either of them but to suggest that either one of them is promoting what the Bible doesn’t say is patently false. As is any further suggestion that either of them has also made something the Bible doesn’t say a test of membership. Frankly such charges are simply outrageous.’
Stephen you seem to be easily outraged, and using emotive language against me won’t make you win the debate or convince me any quicker, so you might as well try being a little more civil in tone. I honestly don’t believe I have mischaracterised Clifford Goldstein or President Wilson at all.
Does the Bible say the world was made by Yahweh in 6 ‘days’ – yes it does. Ex 20:11:
‘For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and consecrated it.’
But does the Bible categorically conclude as to the age of the earth, the length of a ‘day’, or the process of creation – no it does not. There is a whole lot of speculation and presuming going on, whether you admit it or not.
The age of the earth being supposedly 6,000 years is actually the speculation of James Ussher, Archbishop of Armagh in the 17th Century, counting up the genealogies, which many scholars today now see as extremely problematic.
The age of an actual ‘day’ is itself problematic, and the Bible is silent as to whether a ‘day’ in Genesis 1 means 24-hours or not. We have long discussed that point.
As to the process of creation, the Bible is also pretty ambiguous and silent on things. The YEC model as usually described and defended on the basis of a whole series of speculations the Bible doesn’t say. The lion’s teeth being an example we have now exhaustively discussed. Passages such as Gen 1:11,20,22 actually point to an indirect method of creation (much like evolution), rather than the more direct method we often consider under the YEC model. So again, there is plenty that the YEC assumes based on what the Bible doesn’t actually say.
Thus, there is a whole lot in the YEC model, as usually defended, that relies on things the Bible does not categorically explain.
So there can be no accusation of mischaracterisation, let’s now briefly review what Glifford Goldstein actually said in the Adventist Review:
Goldstein: ‘[A]s unbelievable as it seems, some among us have now accepted theistic evolution–the idea that God used the process of evolution, over millions of years, to create humanity.
What amazes me isn't so much that people can believe in evolution (after all, I used to), but that those who do still want to be Seventh-day Adventists. I can respect someone who, believing in evolutionary theory, rejects the Adventist Church entirely. I have no respect for those who think they can meld the two.
…For those among us who have already decided–despite the Bible and Ellen White–on evolution, there are plenty of other churches for you. Ours isn't one. And to those teaching in our schools who believe in evolution and yet take a paycheck from the Seventh-day Adventist Church, I say: If you honestly reject a literal six-day creation in favor of theistic macroevolution, fine; now turn that honesty into integrity and go somewhere where you won't have to cloak your views under the anfractuosities of language.’
http://www.adventistreview.org/2003-1530/story4.html
If you want an outrageous statement, the above one is it. Goldstein is effectively saying that if you accept that ‘God used the process of evolution, over millions of years’ then ‘now turn that honesty into integrity and go somewhere where you won’t have to cloak your views’. So Goldstein tells people to leave the SDA Church if they disagree with him on those two points, being the age of the earth and process of creation, telling people ‘on evolution, there are plenty of other churches for you.’
So Goldstein does make the age of the earth and the process creation a test of membership. Even though as we have discussed, the Bible is actually far from categorical and actually quite silent on the particulars of those things. Thus, despite your righteous indignation of being outraged, my reading of Goldstein himself is that he does make a test of membership over things the Bible actually doesn’t say.
And looking at President Wilson, to arrive at his view requires a degree of speculation, of ‘filling in the gaps’ and relying on certain assumptions about things the Bible itself is ambiguous or silent on:
President Wilson: “Unfortunately, there are those who dismiss Genesis 1–11 as allegorical, [as] nice stories but only symbolic,” he added. “I want to tell you . . . that God created this world in six literal, consecutive, contiguous, 24-hour days of recent origin… “The Seventh-day Adventist Church’s position’s on a global flood [is] clear and forthright,” he said. “These positions are based on a literal reading of the Word of God and demonstrations in nature.”
http://www.adventistreview.org/issue.php?id=3627&action=print
To invoke a ‘literal’ reading is itself a speculation that rests on certain assumptions. Interestingly, Wilson’s invoking on ‘demonstrations in nature’ also appears to be an invocation of science, which you seem to think ‘godless’ as thus not permitted as a lesser source of divine knowledge. It would seem President Wilson disagrees with you there.
Again, I have no great concerns about the current FB#6, because it merely repeats what the Bible says. It is entirely biblical to say:
‘In six days the Lord made "the heaven and the earth" and all living things upon the earth, and rested on the seventh day of that first week.’
However, it would be speculation, taking it beyond what to Bible strictly says, to make President Wilson’s statement that that ‘six days’ must mean ‘six literal, consecutive, contiguous, 24-hour days of recent origin’.
If President Wilson left it at what the Bible said, rather than what he thinks the Bible means, there wouldn’t be such an issue. The problem is he wants FB#6 to be re-drafted so that rather than just directly quoting scripture, it instead reflects his interpretation of scripture. It somewhat bemuses me that so many who debate this issue can’t even see that distinction. They think they are defending what the Bible says; whereas, they actually are going further, in defending what they think the Bible means, and it is not at all the same thing.
My concern is not the YEC positions of Goldstein and Wilson, because that is a legitimate theological position to take. My concern is their sentiments, which you might think implied but I see as very explicit, that if you don’t agree with them on the age of the earth or process of creation, you should leave the SDA Church. Both Ervin and Jack have written about this ad nauseam. If you want to be outraged, be outraged over that position, which attempts to push people (often young college-age people) out of the SDA Church.
In conclusion, to make any statement that the earth is or is not a certain age, or was created or not created in any particular process, is in fact, ‘promoting what the Bible doesn’t say.’ To say the world was created in six days is biblical; to say it was created in six literal, consecutive, contiguous 24-hour days of recent origin goes beyond the strict reading of the text into the realm of speculation of what the Bible doesn’t say.
I have no problem with speculation, but I am not the one presuming to take the moral high ground that we shouldn’t be doing any presuming. I think you presume that President Wilson and Clifford Goldstein are not presuming anything, which in itself is one of the biggest presumptions of them all!
That Goldstein, a writer for the official SDA Review to make such statements reflective of the church, and Wilson does the same is rank heresy; to equate their interpretation as absolute is to claim powers never given by God to be the arbiter of truth.
Either you accept and agree with their comments or you should do the honorable thing and leave tghe church. Is there any other possible understanding of those statements as an invitation to leave?
What the GC President and Mr Goldstein (and Ellen White) have said isn't heresy. Death before sin and evolutionism is. They are both unbiblical.
Mr 22: ‘What the GC President and Mr Goldstein (and Ellen White) have said isn't heresy.
I wouldn’t call Mr President or Mr Goldstein’s views heresy. They are totally legitimate views as they are a legitimate (and traditional) way of interpreting certain biblical passages. But the important point is to realise it is an interpretation. Whilst the Bible clearly says the ‘For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them,’ (Ex 20:8), the Bible nowhere expressly or explicitly says as President Wilson does, ‘six literal, consecutive, contiguous, 24-hour days of recent origin’. Speculation is totally fine, and unavoidable, as long as we recognize it is speculation.
‘Death before sin and evolutionism is. They are both unbiblical.’
Unbiblical? Didn’t Adam and Eve eat fruit, and didn’t that result in plant-cell death? You of course will twist some answer and say, ‘I didn’t mean death at the cellular level, because plants can still survive if they lose their fruit – in fact they are designed for that purpose.’ But that requires a degree of speculation; a degree of non-literal reading of the text. That requires wittingly away from the dogmatism of your statement that death before sin is heresy.
And where is your biblical proof that there was no animal death either? Show me the Bible text. And how did animals maintain their immortality – did they have to eat from the Tree of Life as well? And if there was no death, how could there be space for new offspring?
And what was the purpose of procreation then, if the whole world was a complete paradise. If there were tress everywhere, and trees couldn’t die, then what would be the purpose of a new mustard seed, because surely there would be no empty place in the ground for it to grow? Or do you admit that there was in fact a barren wilderness outside of the Garden, upon which Adam and Eve were expelled? And what then was the nature of this wilderness and why did God allow it to exist?
I am happy to accept your non-literal, speculative theological gymnastics to make all the ambiguities and inconsistencies fit. But by doing so you condemn your own supposed moral high ground of simply relying on the Bible and nothing more.
“Again, I have no great concerns about the current FB#6, because it merely repeats what the Bible says. It is entirely biblical to say:
‘In six days the Lord made "the heaven and the earth" and all living things upon the earth, and rested on the seventh day of that first week.’”
I did not know that “simply outrageous” was emotive language or considered less than civil. So if you were offended, I apologize for offending you; although my intention was not offend, but rather to defend.
I seem to recall that you are a lawyer, so hopefully you won’t mind being asked to explain the logic or the rationale behind a deduction that “that first week” could/would possibly be longer or shorter than every other week that would follow “that first week”?
If “it is entirely biblical to say” that “In six days the Lord made ‘the heaven and the earth’…and rested on the seventh day of that first week,” how can an insistence that “that first week—”which ended with a “seventh day,” represents that which is referenced in Exodus 20:11 as a reason to (“for”) “remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy…” be anything but entirely biblical as well?
In fact to insist that it even might represent anything other than a seven earth day week would represent an insistence on what the Bible does not say. It is the earth we are talking about. We all are earthlings after all.
I sincerely thank you for providing the links to the Goldstein column, as well as the article from which you accessed Wilson’s statement. I had previously seen those statements referenced, but had not read the entire statements; nor had I seen the entire articles from which they were acquired.
I’m disappointed that we don’t have access to the entirety of Wilson’s remarks. (Ellipses often make me wary that something important is missing; but the gist is clear.)
It may not be shocking to you that, after reading these statements, I don’t find them to be at all objectionable. Would it make any sense for someone like Goldstein let’s say to be teaching Roman Catholic theology at a Jesuit institution? In other words, if you do not believe the basic doctrine of a faith community, why should you teach at one of their institutions and take their money? Why shouldn’t the institution in question insist that its teaching faculty adhere to their church’s doctrine; whatever it happens to be? (For that matter, would it make sense for someone like Goldstein to insist on being accepted as a practicing Roman Catholic?)
As for Wilson, he is insisting that, based on what the Bible actually does say and repeatedly implies, there is no compromise for Seventh-day Adventists as to what the original seventh day was and represents; nor the six days that preceded it.
(I will grant you however that the Bible does not say “of recent” anything. That is a matter of deduction based on the genealogy recorded in the Bible.)
Lastly, while Goldstein clearly invited evolutionist teachers in Adventist institutions to find employment elsewhere, and evolutionists generally to leave the church; I did not see where Wilson has actually invited anyone to leave the church. While I would personally prefer a tolerance for Seventh-day Evolutionists, Seventh-day Darwinists, and even Seventh-day Atheists (https://atoday.org/article/297/blogs/foster-stephen/2010/seventh-day-atheists), I don’t begin to understand why they find Seventh-day Adventism attractive; that is at least those who clearly seem desperate to want to change it.
Stephen Foster: ‘I did not know that “simply outrageous” was emotive language or considered less than civil. So if you were offended, I apologize for offending you; although my intention was not offend, but rather to defend.’
No need to apologies. Obviously something was just lost in translation.
Stephen Foster: ‘In fact to insist that it even might represent anything other than a seven earth day week would represent an insistence on what the Bible does not say. It is the earth we are talking about. We all are earthlings after all.’
There is nothing wrong with insisting on something that the Bible does not say, where the plain, ordinary and literal meaning leads to absurdities, inconsistencies and ambiguities. It is a principle of interpreting things that I use in my everyday life.
Christians have now done this since Columbus, in no longer reading those Bible texts that suggest the world is flat or fixed on an unmovable pillar. Instead, unlike the medieval Christians who persecuted Galileo and Copernicus, modern Christians (even conservative ones) understand those texts through the prism of science (i.e. Columbus observations and experiences that the world was actually round and moveable through space and time), so that today we don’t take those Bible texts so literally. The problem never was the Bible – it was always human interpretations of the Bible.
You would no doubt need to do this yourself, in justifying how God could tell Adam he would die in the same day he ate the fruit, and yet Adam lived to some 930 years! The word ‘day’ in that first has to be interpreted away in some manner than the plain, ordinary and literal meaning – doesn’t it?
I have no problems with admitting God created the world in 6 days or 1 week, but it remains an open question, especially when confronted with the reality of scientific consensus (which you simply chose to ignore as if Columbus never discovered the world was round), whether these were ‘God-days’ and a ‘God-week’ or ‘human-days and a ‘human-week’.
Yes, we are earthlings. We are made in the divine image. Our 6 days of weekly creation are an image, a memorial, a lesser ‘imitation’ if you will, of God’s own majestic creation. As our own weekly creation in no way matches God’s creation, so our weekly Sabbath, which was made for us, in no way matches God’s own rest, which has never stopped since God gave dominion to humanity. One could go so far as the suggestion that our weekly Sabbath matches God’s own Sabbath is in fact a form of idolatry, because it elevates what is clearly a symbol or ordinance imposed by God on mankind as a memorial to the suggestion that man=God.
The 4th Commandment is making a comparison between God and man. We are not the same as God, but only a memorial. So are our working days and so are our Sabbath days. That is why there is probably no ‘evening and morning’ refrain in Gen 2:1-3, and why there is no reference in Gen of Adam ever keeping the Sabbath.
Otherwise, why did the same Moses who wrote Exodus file to mention that fact when he wrote Genesis? Explain that?
The Sabbath is like the bread and wine, which are not literally the flesh and blood of Christ (which Catholics teach on a literal reading of the Bible) but just a symbolic representation. Does that make the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper obsolete then or done away with – no of course not. So it is with the Sabbath. In fact, the Sabbath is more important if one rejects a YEC model, because the affirmation of God as Creator and his creation as good is more important despite the evidence before our eyes of a tooth-and-claw world.
Stephen Foster: ‘Lastly, while Goldstein clearly invited evolutionist teachers in Adventist institutions to find employment elsewhere, and evolutionists generally to leave the church; I did not see where Wilson has actually invited anyone to leave the church.’
I agree Wilson has not been anywhere near as extreme as Goldstein. The problem is Goldstein is very much an official mouth piece of the Church. Isn’t he the editor of the SS pamphlet, and doesn’t that make him in effect an official spokesperson of the Church? Weren’t his comments made in the very official Adventist Review?
My major gripe is Goldstein is not helping when he tells people to go leave the Church.
Stephen Foster: ‘While I would personally prefer a tolerance for Seventh-day Evolutionists, Seventh-day Darwinists, and even Seventh-day Atheists (https://atoday.org/article/297/blogs/foster-stephen/2010/seventh-day-atheists), I don’t begin to understand why they find Seventh-day Adventism attractive; that is at least those who clearly seem desperate to want to change it.’
Happy to accept the title ‘Seventh-day Evolutionist’ if you are willing to accept the title ‘Seventh-day Catholic’. If Goldstein is going to make up pejorative labels, but he should be willing to accept some new one for his own ‘side’. After all, the conservative wing of the Anglican communion describes itself as ‘Anglo-Catholic’, and like many on the conservative wing of our SDA Church, seem to elevate Sacred Tradition to a very high place indeed.
The SDA Church is at the very least willing to uphold tradition over science – that much is clear – something even the Roman Catholics today don’t do. Perhaps that makes the conservative wing of the SDA Church ‘ultra-Catholics’? But I am digressing.
Look at our own history Stephen. Perhaps a hundred and fifty or so years ago, someone could have said (modifying your statement slightly):
‘While I would personally prefer a tolerance for those who:
I don’t begin to understand why they find Seventh-day Adventism attractive; that is at least those who clearly seem desperate to want to change it.’
Now go read the preamble to the 28 FBs and see what our Church is meant to stand for as an anti-creedal movement. The difference is for you perhaps this issue is an ‘essential’ matter to be made a test of fellowship. You also don’t seem to allow the possibility of progressive revelation and present truth, which were very important for the Pioneers. Perhaps you see every permutation of belief as ‘essential’ and unchangeable, much like the SDA Reform Movement, who won’t let a man get baptized if he wore shorts, or a woman if she cut her hair, and seem stuck in a Victorian-era time warp.
For me, one can still believe in the ‘core’ fundamentals of Trinity, salvation by grace through faith, the perpetuity of the Decalogue and Sabbath, state of the dead, and literal second Advent of Christ, even if one questions whether God created the world more indirectly that first thought, over a much longer period of time than first thought, involves in a Great Controversy that is much bigger and much older than first thought. Because you personally don’t see a way to reconcile these views is the reason why you can’t understand why such people find Seventh-day Adventism attractive.
Stephen Foster: ‘…there is no compromise for Seventh-day Adventists as to what the original seventh day was and represents…’
There should perhaps be no compromise on all our FBs then? Forget the preamble about amending the FBs as the Holy Spirit leads to new light and a greater understanding of scripture?
The irony is that under the current wording of FB#6, it is possible to reject YEC and still claim to believe in all the 28 FBs. If it were not so, President Wilson and co would not be trying to change FB#6 would they?
Thus, Goldstein and others are asking for those who can accept a current FB to leave the SDA Church, because he like you can’t personally reconcile an issue, to make the ‘leap of faith’ if you will, that others have long thought hard about and can reconcile. However, the true irony is that whilst Goldstein are asking these ‘FB-keeping’ Adventists to leave, nothing is said these days is said about enforcing orthodoxy in some of the less ‘core’ FBs, such as the Investigative Judgment (#24), Ellen White (#18), prohibition on divorce (#23), or the Law (#19).
In fact, didn’t your brother Preston Foster write an entire series of articles questioning belief in FB#19 re the Law of God:
https://atoday.org/article/1628/columns/foster-preston/a-fundamental-problem
Perhaps go ask your brother then why he remains a Seventh-day Adventist if he has concerns accepting a FB? I am not attacking Preston at all because I agree with a lot of what he has said on those articles. I am merely making the point that telling people to leave the Church becomes less of a good idea when it is someone close to us personally. It reminds me of Adventist Pastors who suddenly soften their stances on homosexuality per our FB#23, not because of some new enlightened exegesis of the Bible, but because a son or daughter turns out to be gay.
It would be interesting to see Goldstein go tell those Adventists who reject the FBs #18, #19, #23, and #24 to actually go leave the Church in the same hard-core language as he did over FB#6, but I suspect he’d be too scared to do so. He’d probably have a massive backlash on his hands, and if push came to shove would probably lose most of the Church in the Developed World – who pays most of the money to cover the wages of people like him. In some ways, evolution remains obscure enough, and ‘high-brow’ enough within the more ‘elite’ circles of Adventism and its academic institutions, that it represents a ‘soft target’ for his conservative agenda.
That’s the impression I get anyway. Happy to be proven wrong if you can show statements where Goldstein has told those who don’t fully accept FBs #18, #19, #23, and #24 to actually go leave the Church, as he has with FB#6.
Stephen,
Why do you keep saying that you would like to believe Young Earth Creation (whatever you believe that to entail/mean); yet appear to go great lengths to explain away such belief in your mind?
This is why I continue to press the question of the logic of believing some miracles that science would insist could never have actually occurred while disbelieving other miracles based on what science claims did not or could not have ever occurred.
I’d advise you to feel free to believe whatever you really want to believe.
I considered myself a moderate-to-liberal Adventist before my exposure to real liberalism. In fact, I’ve always (and continue to) reject the description of ‘traditional’ in favor of ‘historical’ to describe my approach to Seventh-day Adventism.
I understand that some of our mores and practices are tradition and not doctrinal. But what the Bible reports that God Himself said he did is core doctrine.
We are Seventh-day Adventists. Change as to what the original seventh day means to Adventists is non-negotiable to historical Seventh-day Adventists.
Besides Stephen, this FB thing is not something that I introduced in this discussion. When did Clifford Goldstein say anything about FB#6 or any of the enumerated Fundamental Beliefs? And who says that all FB’s are of the same importance, or created equally (as we say in America) anyway?
What I am saying, and have been saying, is that in their insistence that the first week consisted of six days of creation and ended in a seventh day, neither Goldstein or Wilson are promoting anything that the Bible does not say. The suggestion that a day means hundreds of millions or billions of years is suggestive of something the Bible doesn’t say.
Dear Stephen Ferguson
I take it, like many on these boards, that you too don't accept Ellen White as an inspired writer when it comes to her distinct position regarding the seven literal twenty four hour (earth rotation) days of Creation. So whatever Ellen White writes about this is dismissed as a fallacy or as you like to put it: 'speculative'. Why do I raise Ellen White in this discussion? I have found that it is rather predictable that those who challenge or disregard her writings and distance themselves from it are in most cases those who oppose our historical positions as a Church.
This has led me to conclude that:
1] You also would believe that there was death before sin.
2] Ellen White and our historical position as a church is in error with regards to the Creation week.
3] The seven days of the first week aren't literal twenty four hour (earth rotation) days. (By the way how do you calculate a day of twenty four hours if not by earth rotation?)
Here are a few more quotes from Ellen White just to help confirm that you don't accept the historical position regarding Creation:
I'm not as smart as you are and need to at least know where you stand so I can respond to your many interesting views. Even though you have referred to at least one of my comments as rubbish, I will still try my best to answer or defend my beliefs even if they be that to you Sir.
You have written much in reponse to my comments which I will respond to shortly as time permits.
'Why do I raise Ellen White in this discussion?'
What happened to the Bible and the Bible alone? Isn't that the test of faith, even according to Ellen White? Aren't you proving my point about relying on 'lesser lights', whether it be science or revelation?
'I take it, like many on these boards, that you too don't accept Ellen White as an inspired writer when it comes to her distinct position regarding the seven literal twenty four hour (earth rotation) days of Creation.'
Yes I believe Ellen White was an inspired writer. However, I would say I have a 'realistic' and more importantly 'biblical' view of her writings. When people make the oft-cited criticisms of her, they don't alter my faith in her gift, because I only judge her by the standard of biblical prophets. I don't treat her like a god or a God-dictation-machine – which both her stauchest followers and criticis both presume, having a false debate based on erroneous assumptions.
I don't believe everything Ellen White said in every utterance was 100% scientifically correct. I take my cue from the Ellen White Estate itself, which provides the following guidance:
Attention has been called to statements that seem to show that Ellen White made grievous errors regarding scientific issues. Prophets are not called to update encyclopedias or dictionaries. Nor are prophets (or anyone else) to be made "an offender by a word" (Isa. 29:21). If prophets are to be held to the highest standards of scientific accuracy (every few years these "standards" change, even for the experts), we would have cause to reject Isaiah for referring to "the four corners of the earth" (Isa. 11:12) and John for writing that he saw "four angels standing at the four corners of the earth" (Rev. 7:1).
http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/faq-unus.html#unusual-section-c2
I believe Ellen White was not always intending to be pedantically correct in every detail of her statements. I don't judge Ellen White any more harshly on the Gospel writers, who couldn't agree on the fine details of things, because they never expected to have their work to be forensically examined as a legal or scientific textbook. I don't judge Ellen White any harsher than the writers of the Gospel, who couldn't agree whether it was the Centurion who personally visited Jesus (Matt 8:5,6), or whether the Centurion just sent Jewish elders as his representatives instead (Luk 7:3,4).
I believe Ellen White was falliable and wrong at times. I believe the visions were from God, but the words she chose, like any words, were limited by her humanity. I believe on some things, like the Shut Door, she misunderstood. On that I don't judge Ellen White any more harshly than the prophet Nathan, who told David he could build the Temple (2 Sam 7:3) but was wrong, and had to be corrected by God (2 Sam 7:4,5).
I believe Ellen White sometimes gave 'present truth', which was something the hearers at the time had to hear, but which was only a 'limited' or even incorrect statement. I recall Ellen White wrongly told old Captain Bates about the number of moons of Jupiter and Saturn, which we now know scientifically was wrong. However, and this is the key point, what she told Bates was the then latest scientific information, and so what she told Bates convinced him of her gift. If she had told Bates the actual scientifically correct answer, as we now know today, Bates wouldn't have believed her.
http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/faq-unus.html#unusual-section-c2
I believe Ellen White sometimes shared her own personal human opinion, which didn't represent a message from God. This is especially important given the thousands, and thousands of letters she wrote. On that I don't judge her any more harshly from the Apostle Paul, who told virgins not to marry, because there wasn't time as Jesus was about to return (1 Cor 7:25). I don't judge him too harshly or call him false, even though it is 2,000 years later and we are still waiting.
I believe Ellen White herself when she said God was with the penmen, not in the pen. I view prophets as artists painting portraits of God through time. As God is infinite, a prophet only sees a glimpse of God. Each prophet is also limited by their medium. If you made Van Gough, Di Vinci and Picasso to all paint the same model, say the Mona Lisa, we would all get 3 similar but very different paintings. They would all be 'true' but not in the sense of a photographic sense.
And you know what, prophets are not photographers – they are painters. They don't simply replicate or dictate a message from God. Instead, they have the image of God before them, and then translate those images in their own words. And you know what, photos don't usually sell for millions of dollars – paintings do. Rarely will a photograph be described in religious language of 'inspired', whlist a painting, or a poem, or a song will.
So yes, I do believe in Ellen White and greatly respect her. The greatest irony is that without Ellen White, the SDA Church would undoubtably be a cult, which is ironic given many other denominations claim we are a cult because of her. Ellen White made our Church more orthodox, in rejecting Arianism and embracing the Trinity, and helping form a sense of organisation, and in helping promote righteousness by faith instead of legalism.
'Here are a few more quotes from Ellen White just to help confirm that you don't accept the historical position regarding Creation'
I would say I tend towards the negative notion of disbelief in YEC, but I don't have positive notion in belief for any other model of origins either. I am pretty agnostic on the subject. I guess I would say I find it hard to ignore:
When I have looked into these issues in a serious way, the old cliches don't seem to stack up. As Adventists, we supposedly value truth, and progressive and present truth at that, above everything else – but do we really? Have we perhaps instead become like the Roman Catholics, valuing tradition above all else, because we no longer know how to adapt our faith as new light emerges?
“The fact that some 99% or more of scientists reject YEC. That is a fact that is pretty difficult to go on ignoring. As I am not a scientist, I can't go to my own primary research. If I was a judge or a jury member in a trial, if I have 99 expert witnesses saying one thing, and just 1 witness saying the other thing, which side would you trust – seriously?”
Seriously, Stephen, do you doubt that 100% of Godless scientists would likewise say that a dead person cannot be resurrected by the power of someone’s voice? Why isn’t that something that you find “pretty difficult to go on ignoring”?
“The contradictions, ambiguities and inconsistencies in the biblical story itself in Gen 1-3. I still can't past the fact that the heavens, presumably including all the stars, were created more day one. I still can't get over that light was create on day 1. And yet, the sun and moon won't even created until day 4.”
Let me get this straight, although you admittedly don’t mind speculation, you don’t/won’t speculate that prior to the placement of the sun, that the “light” perhaps emanated from God Himself; whose brightness blinded Paul (Acts 9:3), and whose brightness will kill the wicked upon His return (2 Thessalonians 2:8), and whose brightness will be sufficient for all of heaven (Revelation 21:23, 22:5). Yet because the Biblical narrative is not explained in the Bible quite to your satisfaction, you are nonetheless willing to speculate that the 'week' described in Genesis took thousands, or millions, or tens, or hundreds of millions, or billions of years to transpire.
You must admit some glaring contradictions and inconsistencies in your approach to Biblical ambiguities.
Stephen not all of those scientists are 'godless'.
Ok perhaps I have less objection to YEC if it was said that as a matter of observation, the world appears to be millions or billions of years old, but as a matter of faith, one believes it is only a few thousand years old. That would seem a better way to reconcile this problem and I would be more willing to entertain that as a possibility.
After all, if a bunch of scientists were able to go back in time and examine newly created Adam, how old do you think they would say he was? No doubt the scientists, using the scientific method, might say he was say 30-years old. But we would know that Adam was only 1-day old! After all, God created an adult Adam, not a baby one.
What would a scientist say if they examined the resurrected Christ? I don't know, but perhaps it would a similar response to that of Adam.
Science isn't a matter of what is, it is just a matter of what can be observed. I think it would be legitmate to say that scientifically the world is observed as being billions of years old, whilst stating as a matter of faith that perhaps it is much shorter. There would still be problems of the 'trickster God', especially as to why God would create a completed fossil record, but I would feel more comfortable with this line of argument.
I think that sort of argument, of distinguishing scientific observation from faith, is far superior to those YEC who try to argue that YEC is supported by science.
Dear Mr Ferguson
Ok, so you're grumbling about my Ellen White quotes, well here are a few Bible verses, both mentioned by her in a quote I posted earlier. Why is it so hard for you to accept that God spoke and it was done? The heavens and the all the host of them were made by his word. It takes faith to believe in God and accept the awesome creative power he has. He speaks time, matter and life into existence right there in Genesis. You make many assumptions about these days being long eons where death occured before sin and an indefinite weekend at the seventh by speculating that it was longer than a rotation therby denying the weekly cycle. I'm getting more and more convinced that somewhere in the academics and intellectualism of it all – faith in God is eroded. The bible says in Luke 18:8 when the Son of man comes, will he find faith? I believe God is testing our faith in this time of the Investigative Judgement. All that can be shaken will be shaken as Sister White has been inspired to say.
For he spoke, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.
By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.
Dear Mr Ferguson
Sir, you said: "Science isn't a matter of what is, it is just a matter of what can be observed."
———
Can I add here that evolution is not what is – neither can it be observed – so is it science? Anyway, from what I have gathered, science is what is taught, hence 99% of those who were taught evolution believe evolution. 'Sides, most who teach evolution for a living make a killing in earning potential and it is a lucrative market to pursue and defend at all costs, even if it means deying the belief that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth." [Gen 1:1]. Belief in evolution is a cultural thing to me which helps one to toe the line with that particular groupthink where peer pressure dominates.
I think part of the problem is that those who advocate YEC make two contradictory arguments:
1. Some say that the current scientific consensus is wrong, and they try to argue that 'true science' demonstates a YEC model.
2. Some say we can't trust science, because like the resurrection of Christ, science is inadequate to understand what and how God truly created the world, and how He could have done it in six literal days. Thus, it isn't that the scienfic consensus is 'wrong' but rather limited, because it can only tell us that a one-day Adam is observable 30-years old, where it is revelation that demonstrates that one-day old Adam is only one-day old, despite the scientific observation.
I have some sympathy with the second argument, and seems to be the kind of thing Stephen Foster might be claiming. It also seems to be a lot more honest to me, because it doesn't try to argue science but simply says science is a limited method of knowing the truth about God and creation.
However, I don't agree with the first line of thought, which is to attempt to argue that 99% of scientists are wrong in their observations. I think any belief in some world-wide conspiracy that these 99% of scientists only believe what they do because of some cultural pressure is probably disullionable. Why would so many Adventist scientists risk unemployment, disfellowship and the destruction of their lives and families in coming out and admitting the 'truth' of the 'observation' of evolution, when the cultural pressure is just to shut their mouths? Why have so many scientists in the GC's own GRI ended up believing evolution?
So in short, I have some sympathy and respect for those who say, 'Scientists may make the observation that the world looks like billions of years old, but I believe by faith it isn't.' I don't have so much respect for those say, 'Scientists are all part of some 150-year-long conspiracy, and "true science" demonstrates the world is only 6,000 years old.'
“Why would so many Adventist scientists risk unemployment, disfellowship and the destruction of their lives and families in coming out and admitting the 'truth' of the 'observation' of evolution, when the cultural pressure is just to shut their mouths?”
As to why an Adventist scientist would risk (presumably Adventist) employment as a scientist; this begs Goldstein’s question of intellectual, if not fiduciary, integrity. An Adventist scientist who cannot reconcile him/herself to one of these approaches should resign if they believe that the employing denomination is promoting superstition as opposed to faith.
Disfellowship is another matter, in my view. While again, I have no idea why anyone who doesn’t believe the fundamental founding beliefs that an organization espouses (in its name, no less) would want to be a member of said organization; I am not a proponent of booting members who are simply evolutionists out of the church.
If it was framed by scientists as the “‘truth’ or ‘reality’ or ‘consensus’ of the scientific community’s observation,” there might be more ‘tolerance’ forthcoming from the faith crowd.
“Why have so many scientists in the GC's own GRI ended up believing evolution?”
Do we have information or evidence that there have been “so many” scientists in the GRI who have ended up disbelieving the six-earth day (evening and morning) Genesis creation narrative, in favor of Darwinian evolution?
I believe that Stephen Ferguson makes an excellent observation in drawing the parallel between the newly created 'adult' Adam and Eve and what scientists might observe/conclude about them based on such things as physical dimensions.
'I believe that Stephen Ferguson makes an excellent observation in drawing the parallel between the newlycreated 'adult' Adam and Eve and what scientists might observe/conclude about them based on such things as physical dimensions.'
Stephen, if we are talk of integrity, I believe that line of argument is far more plausible, and has far more intergrity, of the notion that there is 'true science' that dispells the 'false science' of evolution. I believe there are a few scientists of the GRI who have adopted that approach themselves, admitting there is not current scientific model that fits with YEC, but admit that by faith they believe in a literal, six-day creation.
I would be much more happy to say that God creation the world in a literal, six-creation, even though it is scientifically impossible and against what is currently observed with the scientific method, based on current understandings. I think that would better fit in with your point about science likewise saying the resurrection of the dead as being impossible, so that one does not get into silly debates about 'true science' vs 'false science' over the resurrection, but can only take something by faith.
The problem is that many within conservative and fundamentalist Christianity try to have it both ways, in arguing 'true science' supports YEC, which is doesn't, and then arguing science is 'godless' and can't be trusted, if someone proves their science as incorrect.
I am aware of this 'Adam-age' (to use my example) or 'resurrection' (to use your example) argument might be part of the NOMA approach (Non Overlapping Magisterium Approach). I know many criticise it, on both 'sides' of the debate, and I can't say I feel entirely comfortable with it either, given I do think observation of nature (i.e. science) can be a source of divine knowledge as lesser light. However, within my own mind, I am willing to count it as a legitimate possibility of explaining the origins problem, where I am not quite positively convinced of any argument. As you can see, I am trying to be quite open to different views on this.
'An Adventist scientist who cannot reconcile him/herself to one of these approaches should resign if they believe that the employing denomination is promoting superstition as opposed to faith.'
Answer me this. What is wrong with teaching in a science class evolution, making it clear this is what can be observed in nature by human beings using the scientific method? And then in religion class, teaching that by faith science is limited, and only represents what can be observed, not what fundamentally is, so that by faith what might believe in a literal, six-day creation?
By analogy, one could learn in human biology or anatomy class that when peole die, their bodies decompose – that is science? And in religion class, they can learn that by faith they can believe those bodies will one day rise from the dead, despite being a scientific impossibility?
That I believe is the approach that they did try at LSU, but which the Magesterium of the Church rejected. It would seem the hierarchy doesn't want SDA scientists and teaching evolution as science, even though that is what it exactly is – it is what can be observed about the natural origins of the world using the best of current methods. It is no different from the same science department teaching that human bodies decompose at death. It is in religion class, not science class, that metaphysical explanations of the non-scientific origins and non-scientific resurrection should be taught.
To me that would have seemed to logical compromise to keep unity but also the independence of the science departments.
I’m glad you asked this question Stephen.
As a board trustee of a Seventh-day Adventist institution of higher education, I do not mind offering my opinon on this.
Our science professors, history professors, English professors, communications professors, physical education professors, or music professors—whatever the discipline—our instructors/lecturers/professors should be teaching our students within the paradigm of our Christian Protestant Seventh-day Adventist worldview.
So, someone teaching what the scientific consensus is with regard Darwinism or some other iteration of evolutionary theory (or anthropogenic global climate change), should position it as such, the scientific consensus theory of its observation; but that it does not trump or disprove whatever God said that He did.
I repeat, interpretation of Scripture based on, or influenced by, Godless science is bogus.
Where is the opportunity for an adult student to use his critical thinking skills if he is told what to believe? Both the scientific findings should be taught or else they are sailing under false colors claiming to teach science but instead, religious doctrine. The teacher can explain what the approved SDA doctrines are and let the students learn to judge for himself. This is what he will be expected to be able to do after college when he meets with many various beliefs. If he only parrots what has been taught as the SDA doctrine, how will he be able to offer that position without understanding the present scientific knowledge?
Elaine,
Presumably people attend Adventist colleges because they want a Seventh-day Adventist higher education. Matriculation at our institutions is not mandatory. (Actually, faculty service is not mandatory either.)
Students can/should learn about the consensus scientific theories, observations, and/or opinions; but Seventh-day Adventist colleges and universities are not public K-12’s.
(Besides Jesus Christ, critical thinking skills are emphasized at Oakwood more than anything else.)
Parents probably have a stronger influence on where their children attend as they are paying a good price for that education. But there is no guarantee that they will emerge believing SDAs.
That is true on both scores. The point is that there should be truth in advertising. If we claim to be a Seventh-day Adventist institution of higher learning; that is what we should be delivering. Enrollment and faculty employment are both optional.
Baptist universities should teach and approach the education of students from a Baptist perspective. Catholic universities should, of course, do likewise. SDA colleges/universities should teach and approach the education of its students from Adventism’s perspective. This is what the paying ‘customers’ expect.
Stephen Foster: 'So, someone teaching what the scientific consensus is with regard Darwinism or some other iteration of evolutionary theory (or anthropogenic global climate change), should position it as such, the scientific consensus theory of its observation; but that it does not trump or disprove whatever God said that He did.'
But trump when and where? I understand the argument that an Adventist university, like many religious institutions, perhaps might have mandatory theology or religious classes. I understand in those religious classes, it might be appropriate to teach that the 'truth' of faith from a traditional SDA view of the Bible should trump to 'observation' of evolution. I get that argument.
But surely in science class, the job of the science teacher is to teach science? And as we seem to agree, science might suggest that according to human observation, the world and the universe appears to be billions of years old. You say science is 'godless' but perhaps that is exactly how science should be taught – with no reference to God, because God can't be observed by science directly – or so seem to be your own argument for rejecting science where it conflicts with the Bible.
One might believe by faith that God may have created the universe and the world as an 'adult', being billions of years old, just as God created an adult Adam. However, the science teacher has to teach that billion-year paradigm, because it provides an understanding for almost every field, from physics, to chemistry, to biology to geology.
For example, given speed of light is a constant, there is light that has travelled billions of light years to reach us from stars long extinct. By science, which means by scientific observation, it suggests the universe is billions of years old. By faith, one might argue that God made an 'adult' universe so that this light was already travelling in flight, and it never did actually come from a supernova star. The same goes for say why God made the world with read-made fossils in the ground, or our old dispute about the lion's carnivorous tooth? It still raises questions in my mind about a 'trickster' God, but that somewhat unusual interpretation would reconcile a literal, 6×24 hour view of the world with science.
Thus, why then should a science teacher feel pressured to teach anything other than 'godless', billion-year observed science? If the administrators want to ensure the student understand the traditional SDA biblical understanding, that is surely the job of the religious teachers, not the science teachers? The scientist by definition teachers science – not religion.
If you have concerns students are not getting sufficient religious instruction, do something about that, and perhaps hire more chaplains or something, or make them attend mandatory religious classes on this creationist topic.
Stephen,
Please allow me to inform you that at most if not all SDA colleges and/or universities—well, at least at Oakwood—the constituents actually expect the entire faculty to teach our worldview about everything; that is, from every angle and discipline.
Once again, the Bible is silent about the age of the universe, and indicates that the earth was “without form and void” for an undetermined, indefinite time period. Clearly then, the universe has existed for an undetermined and indefinite period of time.
(Based on what the Bible does say, for all we know it may have been the creation of this solar system that is described in the Genesis narrative.)
In any case, the suggestion that our science teachers should not inform or reiterate to our students that the Bible unambiguously records God as the Creator of everything is not serious; at least at Oakwood.
Of course, as you know, I don’t have a problem with lion’s teeth nor do I buy that ready-made fossils were in the ground (or require a Godless accounting for them), because we have no idea how animals have changed, what they looked like at Creation, nor the full effects of The Flood, nor exactly what animals were extant and are now extinct. (I appreciate that some see things differently.)
“Thus, why then should a science teacher feel pressured to teach anything other than 'godless', billion-year observed science?”
You miss the point that no one is pressured to teach at an Adventist grade school, academy, college, or university in the first place. Of course this is crucial because some would have Adventism relinquish its core fundamental beliefs about Creation in which a teacher at an Adventist school could teach anything.
Correction (insertion): “….in which case a teacher at an Adventist school could teach anything.”
Hi Stephen, I think, All truth is God’s truth. To assume that any part of observable and measurable reality (e.i. star light) is not as it appears to be, because of our interpretation of Scripture or another philosophical worldview, throws the enterprise of science and reality testing itself out the window.
So Darrel, you are saying science isn't 'godless' and science should match with scripture? Because if you are saying that, you seem to be saying something quite the opposite to what Stephen Foster is saying, who suggests science is godless and we should have faith in the Bible despite what science teachers. No wonder people (including young people and me) get so confused, because those advocating YEC are putting out two contradictory messages at the same time. I noted this above.
Yes, science can be 'godless' but intrinsically is certainly not at all. Anything discovered to be factual will not be in conflict with "Scripture properly interpreted."
People are confused. It is for example a complete mistake to take Genesis One to say the entire cosmos is six thousand years old. Added to this, the Fact that light from very distant stars have been in transit for millions of years. Then obviously the correct understanding of Genesis One is NOT that the cosmos was created six thousand years ago.
If it can be shown as factual that the earth and life are truly millions of years old, then obviously we have misunderstood Genesis One and we show interpret it according to truth. And attempt to see where we have misunderstood Paul on the timing of the effect of sin on the natural world.
We can misunderstand the record in nature and we can misunderstand the record of Scripture; we maybe confused but they are in harmony.
Mr Ferguson says: "I don't treat her like a god or a God-dictation-machine – which both her stauchest followers and criticis both presume, having a false debate based on erroneous assumptions."
———–
So, are you saying that her writings aren't inspired by God and that Adventists teach that Ellen White is god?
You are misinterpreting Stephen by asking a question he did not state. He only said he doesn't treat EGW like a God. Do you believe she is equal to God and the Bible? Why not tell us what you believe?
Thank you Elaine. Yes he is misinterpting my statement.
The context of what you said implied that others do what you say you don't.
Sorry, but Sir I really don't understand what you are saying. I gave you a very long outline of exactly how I understood the biblical gift of prophecy, including Ellen White's gift. I believe Ellen White was a prophet, and view her the same way I view biblical prophets. As Ellen White use to say, God is with the penmaker, not in the pen!
You are misrepresenting me but I will be kind as always and state that I believe that Ellen White is the Messenger of God gifted with the Gift of Prophecy through the power of the Holy Spirit and that her inspired Christ centered writings have a relevant, pivotal role, in pointing us to the greater light: The Holy Bible. The manifestation of this gift in her life work is one of two identifying characteristics of the Remnant Church [Rev 12:17, 19:10, 22:9] which historically has been a Fundamental Belief of our Church. Our Church does not teach that she is equal with God and I have not come across a single person, including myself, who believes such.
And yet many in the SDA Church treat every single utterance from her is from God, and only reads scriptures through the prism of her writings, as if she were dictating from God word-for-word or could never be wrong. In that sense, people do actually in practice (even if they don't say it out loud) as an infallible 'god', rather than as a mere inspired human being.
I believe she was inspired, but I believe God was only with the penmen, not the pen – as Ellen White herslef used to say. I don't personally doubt the visions were from God, but I believe she only had a limited human brain to recorded it and only limited human words to describe it. I also believed that sometimes she only had a 'limited revelation', like Jonah's fish which we now know was a whale, or descriptions of heaven where Paul makes clear not eye can actually contemplate it. I also believe that at times she shared her personally opinions, which were not from God, and could be wrong. I even believe sometimes whilst a vision was from God, like Nathan and the Temple, she misunderstood and wrote what she thought she understood but was not actually correct.
Point being, both the usual Adventist critics and staunest supporters both actually treat Ellen White in the same way. Her staunchest critics treat her like she in infallible and her critics then in return say, 'Ha, she got that wrong, so she must be a false prophet.' I think both groups of people have the wrong idea of who or what a biblical prophet is or does.
In the 1970'S & 80'S, in the Ontario conference, there were a lot of burnt offerings on Sabbath, as local & most visiting pastors always had "a few more quotes from Sister White", to put window dressing on his topic. The Sabbath scripture reading, often, being the only scripture of the service, but often times six to a dozen EGW quotes, first read, and then expounded upon.
i'm not suggesting that Ellen White didn't have wisdom to offer, or that much of her writings weren't inspired. She has unfortunately been overused, and many conservatives believe her infallible, and present her as a prophet, as such. Much of Christianity, because of this great emphasis on Ellen White, consider the SDA Church a cult, just as Mormonism is a cult because of their earthly god, Joseph Smith. Personally i wouldn't be SDA today, if i hadn't had a copy of Steps To Christ in my possession, at the most critical time of my life. It was a lifesaver.
Darrel: ‘Yes, science can be 'godless' but intrinsically is certainly not at all. Anything discovered to be factual will not be in conflict with "Scripture properly interpreted." … If it can be shown as factual that the earth and life are truly millions of years old, then obviously we have misunderstood Genesis One and we show interpret it according to truth. And attempt to see where we have misunderstood Paul on the timing of the effect of sin on the natural world.’
Darrel, I am inclined to agree with everything you said, as it all sounds very logical to me. Perhaps I mistook you as previously advocating YEC?
I agree science is not intrinsically ‘godless.’ Science is just the modern word we give to human observation of the natural world, which the Bible seems to confirm is a source of divine knowledge about God:
‘For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.’ (Rom 1:20)
‘The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.’ (Psalms 19:1)
However, it would seem to me that those who advocate YEC want it both ways.
They want to say science isn’t godless and is a source of divine knowledge, where in fact the very first ‘naturalists’ a few centuries ago were Christians, convinced that scientific observation about the world supports belief in God (and I think it still does). Modern YEC argue that the scientific consensus is in error, but given some 99% of scientists for well over 150 years support that consensus, and across multiple disciplines, I find it increasingly difficult to justify any continued conspiracy theory.
Then YEC take the complete opposite tact, which appears to be what Stephen Foster does, by simply sidelining science as a source of divine knowledge and calling it ‘godless.’ Thus, they say science is irrelevant, perhaps noting Adam was made an adult or that science can’t explain life after death. I still have problems with this view, given it gives rise to the question ‘What is real in the physical universe?’ and ‘Is God a trickster?’ However, I do think this argument is still a lot more plausible, and does allow for a degree of reconciliation between faith and science.
So the question for any proponent of YEC is – is science a source of divine knowledge or not? You can’t say ‘it is’, and then when confronted with answers you don’t like, turn around and say, ‘actually no it isn’t.’ If science is a source of divine knowledge, and it renders results that are in conflict with one’s interpretation of scripture, like the Church was with Gallileo’s theory of a round earth, then surely what needs to change is that erroneous interpretation of the Bible.
I agree that the error is not the Bible or science, but perhaps our understanding of the Bible or science. What we have to decide is which is wrong and which is right?
I agree Stephen, "simply sidelining science as a source of divine knowledge and calling it ‘godless.’ is cutting off our nose to spite our face. Interpretation of date, Biblical or observational can become 'idols,' –inflexable paradyms, thus preventing openness to new truth.
Interpretation of DATA can become an Idol.
This can easily become, if it has not already become, a circular argument, folks.
I’d like to be corrected if I misunderstand, but Stephen Ferguson seems to be saying that our interpretation of scripture can and should change as often as scientific consensus changes; and/or that we should take our clue as to what the Bible is really saying, or actually means, from the most recent discoveries or grand observations.
While it may occasionally contribute to interpretation, scientific observation is neither the measure nor the arbiter of how we interpret Scripture. If that was the case, scriptural interpretation would be subject to change quite regularly.
Stephen Foster: 'While it may occasionally contribute to interpretation, scientific observation is neither the measure nor the arbiter of how we interpret Scripture.'
Why do you say this? I read Rom 1:20 and Psalms 19:1 as suggesting scientific observation, meaning human observation about creation, as indeed being a source of divine knowledge about the Creator. I am not sure if I would not use the term 'arbiter', but I would indeed call science a 'lesser light' of scripture, including logic (which you use quite regularly on these posts), tradition (which many conservative Adventists mean by use of the word 'historic'), experience (meaning the Holy Spirit's inward moving), social science (including history and archaeology), and revelation (including the gift of prophecy, where you no doubt believe and quote Ellen White).
'If that was the case, scriptural interpretation would be subject to change quite regularly.'
Why and what examples do you have?
Have our interpretations of scripture changed quite regularly when other 'lesser lights' suggest scripture be understood in a different light? Didn't Ellen White as a 'lesser light' change some of our views of scripture? When the Dead Sea Scrolls were found and other archaeological discoveries (who knows you may have been alive then), did you simply disregard their discoveries, or do you agree these were also 'lesser lights' that have impact on our reading of scripture.
If 'lesser lights' lead to a change in our understanding of scripture, even if that change is regular (although not sure how regular you think is regular), that is something to applaud, not fear. That is the very essence of present truth and progressive revelation, which I thought were founding principles of Adventism, as noted in our very preamble to the FBs.
Brother Foster, you ask: do we change our interpretation of Scripture whenever science dictates. My answer is 'no, not whenever, but when supporting investigations and confirming data make a conclusion 'factual' and if that conclusion is at variance with our interpretation of Scripture then, YES we have misunderstood the passages' intention.
For example, Martin Luther condemned the science of his day that said the sun was fixed and the earth rotated around it. He did this based on an interpretation of Scripture, that we know and all accept now was misunderstood by believers at that time.
You might be motivated by fear that the above reasonable approuch could accept macroevolution .
My only answer is that macroevolutionism has not even come close to being confirmed as factual. But of course the public preception is that it is a fact. So I understand where you are coming from, but at least philosophically you can see I think we have to allows check our interpretation of Scripture so we don't miss new truth.
"My only answer is that macroevolutionism has not even come close to being confirmed as factual."
Darrel, Please!!!
You would not even be able to scientifically demonstrate where micro evolution stops and macro begins if you used the terms in the sense they are used within science. There is no magical line, rather an imaginary one drawn by creationists to suit their purposes.
Perhaps, to put the "problem" you face simply:
What biological or logical barriers prevent microevolution from becoming macroevolution, and at what point is the (imaginary) line crossed when using the terms scientifically?
"...when supporting investigations and confirming data make a conclusion 'factual' and if that conclusion is at variance with our interpretation of Scripture then, YES we have misunderstood the passages' intention. "
AMEN!!!
Hi Chris, The line is not imaginary . You can not bred and bred and bred a lizard into a bird. Major transitions are missing between major groups. In 2007, Eugene Koonin, of the Nation Center for Biotechnology Information at the National Institutes of Health, published a paper entitled “The Biolological BNig Bany Model for ht Major Transitions on Evolution.”
The paper is refreshing in its condor; it is alarming in its consequences. “Major transitions in biological evolution, Show the same pattern of suddeen emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity.”
Major transition in biological evolution are missing. These are the transitions that Darwin’s theory required.
Koonin goes on to say, “The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities,” “are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern.”
Examples: “the origin of complex RNA molecules and protewin folds; major groups of viruses, archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eudaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla.” That is, pretty much everything.
Darrel,
Your reply above takes exception to my assertion that the line was imaginary. You're welcome to that POV.
Could you now please answer my question:
"What biological or logical barriers prevent microevolution from becoming macroevolution, and at what point is the line crossed when using the terms scientifically?
Koonin does not appear to see a "line" of demarcation. Note this from the abstract of his paper:
"….each transition is … such that new classes of biological entities emerge at the end of a rapid phase of evolution …. that is characterized by extensive exchange of genetic information which takes distinct forms for different …[transitions]. The major types of new forms emerge independently, via a sampling process, from the pool of recombining entities of the preceding generation." bold added.
No line there, and if there is a "point" which is "crossed", it is crossed by a "rapid phase of evolution"!!!
You may find researching the "net of life" concept interesting. ie replacing the "tree of life". Apart from some similarities to this increasingly used concept (net), Koonins proposition is somewhat irrelevant and is not a consensus position. I fail to understand how you think he helps your cause.
Stephen,
Understandably, you now define scientific observation very broadly (or liberally) to include the appreciation of God’s creative power and handiwork.
Something tells me that our friend cb25, among others, might disagree that Roman 1:20 and Psalms 19:1 represents objective scientific observation.
In order to accommodate objective scientific observation, you likewise appropriate the term “lesser light.” Is there something in Scripture that suggests that objective scientific observation should be the standard by which the Bible is interpreted; or at the least, used as a tool by which to interpret the Bible?
Since we don’t change our interpretation each and every time that objective scientific observation and consensus scientific opinion indicates that we have interpreted something as literal that objective scientific observation and consensus scientific opinion conclude couldn’t have taken place; why don’t we?
Clearly, I don’t believe that we should. For those of you who think that, under certain circumstances, we should; please explain. What are the parameters of those circumstances?
Chris, the second part of you question I can not understand, but as to "What biological or logical barriers prevent microevolution from becoming macroevolution? The answer is Information. Bioligical Genetic Information to cause the “Major transitions in biological evolution," New Information and code is needed to cause this "pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity.”
Darrel, you quote:
"New Information and code is needed to cause this "pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity.”
Where is that from?
Koonin says this:
"The major types of new forms emerge independently, via a sampling process, from the pool of recombining entities of the preceding generation."
That is not supporting your concept of "new information" is it? Please remember, my quoting him does not mean I support his views. I'm using him because you seem to think he does. See above.
Koonin goes on to say, “In each of these pivotal nexuses in life’s history, the principal ‘types’ seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate ‘grades’ or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.”
So is it your understanding Chris, that these new forms can just appear without new information??
The Onus is on you to prove such a radical theory.
You are the one who quoted Koonin! You are the one using "new information" as a definer of what constitutes Macro evolution. Not me.
It is Koonin, your source of authority above who says that it happens from the pool of recombining entities from the preceeding generation. Not me. And YOU use him to support your concept that this requires "new information". He does not say that, but you make it out that he does, when I point that out, you essentially say to me "prove" the radical theory that life foms can appear without "new" information!
I see Evolution as the incremental changes within the net of life that leads to increased variety and complexity. What is and is not new information in that context would be yet another argument.
And, before Jack turns up and accuses me of Hi Jack ing his blog….I'm not going there….
I only commented because I took exception to your view that macroevolution is not even close to being demonstrated. Clearly, the jury is way out on how that even affects the credibility of evolutionary theory as a whole if you were correct, let alone that no one can show where micro ends and macro starts. It is a straw man.
Stephen Foster: 'Understandably, you now define scientific observation very broadly (or liberally) to include the appreciation of God’s creative power and handiwork.'
Yes I do – and I always had, ever since we have had these sorts of discussions. I have made it very clear to you that I have always considered the term 'science' in its broadest sense of the word, to even include social sciences, which is nothing less than human observation of the world around us.
'In order to accommodate objective scientific observation, you likewise appropriate the term “lesser light.” Is there something in Scripture that suggests that objective scientific observation should be the standard by which the Bible is interpreted; or at the least, used as a tool by which to interpret the Bible?'
Yes I did. I already provided texts such as Rom 1:20 and Psalms 19:1. It doesn't matter to me whether Chris agrees that science is a 'lesser light' or not.
As I have noted many times, Adventists use science (in its broadest terms) as a 'lesser light' all the time. We use it every time we refer to history and archaeology in our prophecy seminars. We refer it every time we run a health-related seminar. Ellen White referred to these tool all the time in justifying her theological and pastoral views, and the Ellen White Estate tries to use it to justify many of her more unusual views as well.
Probably the better question is why do you say science (in its broadest sense) isn't a 'lesser light.' Do you just read the Bible is a vacuum, without any reference to its history, cultural context, logic and reason – all of which require the tools of 'science'? I don't think you do. If you did, you'd honestly believe the world was flat and that the 2,300-year prophecy is talking about literal days.
'Since we don’t change our interpretation each and every time that objective scientific observation and consensus scientific opinion indicates that we have interpreted something as literal that objective scientific observation and consensus scientific opinion conclude couldn’t have taken place; why don’t we?'
Perhaps we should. However, just as we shouldn't ignore science we have to recognise it as only a 'lesser' light.
The only thing I should add though is that there is a difference between science being silent or limited about a subject and science suggesting a previous view is incorrect and needs to change. I have never said science is equal to scripture – I have always maintained it as a 'lesser light' in accordance with usual understandings of sola scriptura and prima scriptura.
For example, science can't tell us what happens when we die or whether we will be raised from the dead. Thus, whilst some scientists might try to say Jesus' resurrection was not possible, truthfully, science can't disprove that fact either. Other 'lesser lights', including logic (i.e. Christ and His followers as mad or a liar), history (i.e. the fact of the real existence of disciples dying for a cause for a fake Messiah makes no sense) and even science (i.e. there was an article in the Guardian Newspaper UK about a world-leading doctor who uses science to support the idea of an afterlife), are all routinely used to defend the idea of resurrection. Similarly, science can tell us that black holes exist, but what they really are is a 'supernatural' question, because they exist outside of space and time, and thus outside of science.
However, modern Adventism is based on science. It is based on the idea that certain understandings of the Bible, especially prophecy, which the other Protestant Churches had were wrong. In arguing that these other Protestant Churches were wrong and we were right, scientific tools including history and archaelogy are routinely used. This is also especially the case when it comes to the issue of proving early Christianity kept the seventh-day Sabbath. The Great Controversy is also full of this broad concept of science.
'Clearly, I don’t believe that we should.'
Why don't you? Your whole understanding of scripture within the SDA paradigm isn't, in fact based just on your own plain and literal reading of the text. To be sure, your understanding of scripture is based on certain historic ways of reading certain texts – which other faiths are upfront in naming as the 'lesser light' of 'tradition.' Moreover, that SDA tradition in itself has come about through the lesser lights of science, especially concerning studies of history, archaeology, sociology, linguistics, philosophy and logic – even if you won't admit it.
So then, we do have profound definitional discrepancies which partly explain our differing perspectives.
Natural sciences, such as astronomy, atmospheric science, biology, chemistry, earth science, materials science, oceanography, physics and their related interdisciplinary studies; any “that deal with matter, energy, and their interrelations and transformations or with objectively measurable phenomena” (as Merriam-Webster puts it) represent the objective science to which I have referred.
The observation of the universe by use of these sciences/disciplines without the acknowledgement of God cannot legitimately influence interpretation of Scripture.
That is the point I’ve repeatedly made. Is this, in fact, where we disagree?
Romans 1:20 and Psalm 19:1 do not refer, at all, to the Godless consideration of any of these sciences or ‘disciplines.’ This represents a gross misappropriation of Scripture.
Stephen Foster: 'The observation of the universe by use of these sciences/disciplines without the acknowledgement of God cannot legitimately influence interpretation of Scripture.'
Why can't it. Why did Christians all of a sudden stop persecuting the likes of Gallileo and Capernicus? They didn't suddenly develop some new method of biblical exegesis as much as Christopher Columbus sailed a ship which proved the world was round. In light of that scientific discovery, Christians altered their view of scripture.
Now today, even the most fundamentalist conservative Christian no longer reads texts about having 'corners' or being fixed on a pillar in such a literalist way. Today, we realise those texts were not literal scientific phrases, and that they were more ambiguous than we first thought.
I still struggle to see what happened to Christians following Columbus couldn't or shouldn't happen to Christians today in our understanding of both the world and the Bible?
Christians seemed to have never left Egypt with the Israelites as they are still parked along "Denial River."
Evolutionists who theorise that origins are predicated on micro changes becoming macro changes, of new kinds, over indetermined periods of time, are of two camps; those who see it as a Divine plan of a creator,and those who are certain it is creatorless. This extrapolation is a faith belief of each camp, and there is no certainty of either. As to CERTAIN knowledge advances of the discoveries of science in technology, medicine, math, geology, etc, we have available the information to reassess the validity of earlier views.
Stephen,
Unfortunately, it looks like we will remain in fundamental disagreement on this point.
Although the reality is that neither Copernicus, Columbus, nor Galileo were atheists who did not acknowledge God; I am appreciative of your point.
The problem, and the difference, is that in the case of Copernicus, the heliocentric idea provided enlightenment toward how the solar system is formatted and informed us, for example, that the seemingly overwhelming likelihood is that the earth is what actually stood still in Joshua 10, and not the sun as the ancients assumed.
The larger point being that it was not a denial that something did stop. It was not a denial that the Biblical narrative precisely describes what appeared to have happened from the perspective of ancients who were contemporaneously there on the scene
In other words it is not symbolic of what, in effect, did not occur. The narrative quite clearly records time stopping. This is not possible based on everything we know from any angle of observation.
Now translate this to the Creation narrative. I believe that what is described in Genesis describes what would appear to have occurred had there been any actual witnesses.
Clearly, you happen to believe something else. I respect your prerogative to do so.
Stephen Foster: ‘The problem, and the difference, is that in the case of Copernicus, the heliocentric idea provided enlightenment toward how the solar system is formatted and informed us, for example, that the seemingly overwhelming likelihood is that the earth is what actually stood still in Joshua 10, and not the sun as the ancients assumed.’
This comment probably belongs on Adres’ article about Noah’s flood. Doesn’t it demonstrate that from the perspective of the biblical writer and his audience, it appeared that the sun stood still? And yet don’t we know that whilst the text suggests the sun moves around the earth, it is now the undeniable objective fact the earth actually moves around the sound? Thus, isn’t this just another illustration of the difference between subjective ‘limited’ revelation or understanding on the part of the biblical author, compared with later objective fact as revealed by science?
Stephen Foster: ‘In other words it is not symbolic of what, in effect, did not occur. The narrative quite clearly records time stopping. This is not possible based on everything we know from any angle of observation.’
This appears to be your ‘supernatural miracle’ argument again.
I guess I would similarly ask you then again, why don’t you believe the world is flat with a hard dome? This is the plain and literal meaning. My understanding is that in Gen 1 the word ‘firmament’ has connotations of being a metallic structure of sorts.
Why don’t you just believe that it is a supernatural miracle that makes it appear as if the world is round when in fact it is just flat? Why couldn’t God have created a flat earth with a hard dome as the Bible suggests – was it beyond His power?
Why do you elevate science about the literal meaning of scripture? Similarly, why don’t you call scientists who believe in a flat earth ‘godless’, and yet you call thousands of Christian and Jewish scientists as ‘godless’ for believing in the scientific proof of evolution?
I do very much get the sense that you pick and choose which science you want to believe in (such as a round earth) and which you selectively choose not to believe in (such as evolution). You can’t say it is the Bible’s fault, because the Bible is arguably just as clear or unclear about a flat earth as it is for a literal, consecutive 6×24-hours of creation. So how does one pick and choose?
The reality is it is tradition which makes us choose. You and I were raised to read those Bible verses about creation in a very literalist way, whilst at the same time and with some irony, raised to read those Bible verses about a flat earth in a very non-literalist way. Whilst ‘tradition’ is traditionally (pun intended) a dirty word in Adventism, tradition has a very big role in how you and every other Christian interprets certain passages of scripture.
Thus, whilst you may attempt to reject science as a ‘lesser light’, you certainly (if only subconsciously) accept tradition as a filter through which you read the Bible. We might then want to consider how different we Adventists are, especially those who hark back to ‘historic’ Adventism, from the Roman Catholics we so commonly mock.
The earth standing still would not be as great a miracle as the sun standing still? By what astronomical knowledge is that assumed? It sounds like a child who as yet has notlearned about basic astronomy and physics, or was taught about fairies and witches and demons that were abundant in ancient times.
You would not dare tell this, straight-faced to a physicist, would you? Yet you pass this off as though everyone is stupid enough to believe such tales as literally happening. Perhaps you also believe that a NASA "scientist" has actually "found" the lost day on one of his space trips?
Stephen,
I’m afraid that you did do what I occasionally do; which is not read an entire post but instead got caught up on one statement or comment.
You wouldn’t have said that “it isn’t clear to [you] though whether [I am] reading Joshua 10:13 absolutely literally or not [myself],” if you had understood my point.
In reading it literally, an impossible event actually took place nonetheless; did it not? For those to whom it appeared that the sun actually rose in one direction and set in another, it would have appeared that the sun actually stood still. Does the fact that it was likely/actually the earth that stood still change anything? Was it any less of a miracle? (How Elaine, could the earth standing still possibly be any less of a miracle? Again, I understand if you don’t believe any of the Biblically recorded miracles occurred. But that’s not the case with Brother Ferguson; or Dr. Hoehn, for that matter.)
This is what those of us who believe that the Genesis narrative happened in six days believe occurred in that week. As miraculous as it undoubtedly sounds, we believe that Adam was actually created the day before the day that God rested.
Dear Mr Ferguson
RE: "If you did, you'd honestly believe the world was flat and that the 2,300-year prophecy is talking about literal days."
—————-
I believe the Bible does not teach that the Earth is flat and that such things as 'four corners' can be understood as the four cardinal points of direction which is North, South, East and West. [Rev 7:1] refers to four Angels, four corners and four winds which are symbolic, not because science says there aren't four corners, because the earth is not flat, but because they are part of a prophetic message which most often uses symbolism. The Bible itself is a reliable delimiter. In the example of [Rev 7:1] we find in that [Rev 7:2] 'another angel' coming from the 'East' who cries out to those on the four corners to not to hurt the Earth for a time. I'm getting a sense of direction here.
The '2300 days' are understood as years, not because of any major scientific discovery as such but because the Bible points towards this understanding. We find that the verses following [Dan 8:14] make strong reference to Daniel's vision and clearly reveal this was to come to pass at the time of the end [Dan 8:19] after Media and Persia [Dan 8:20], Greece [Dan 8:21] and thus a legitimate reason requiring the 'year-day' key to unlock this prophecy [Ezek 4:6; Num 14:34] then in [Daniel 8:26] the same vision is referenced. The rest is history so to speak.
Mr22: ‘The '2300 days' are understood as years, not because of any major scientific discovery as such but because the Bible points towards this understanding.’
Don’t Adventists rely on history and archaeology to support their views of prophecy? Are history and archaeologies then types of ‘lesser lights’ or filters through which we understand scripture?
The problem with your view of scripture is probably best illustrated by a parable. Imagine flying over the remote Amazon and dropping a Bible. Imagine that Bible lands in an area settled by an isolated tribe that has never had contact with the outside world. Imagine that a very clever group of Amazonian tribesmen somehow translate that Bible – or perhaps it is one of those talking Bibles where the language is similar enough to a dialect they know. However, one can see that the ‘primitive’ tribes people know nothing about the outside world or history – they are a proverbial blank page.
With that in mind, consider our beliefs and practices from the Bible – especially prophecy. Do you think someone who had never heard of Europe would have understood say that the ten toes of clay and iron in Daniel’s prophecy meant the ten tribes of the Roman Empire – just from reading the Bible without any other ‘lesser lights’ of outside knowledge? Do you think such a person were see indications that the Beast powers in Revelation were the Roman Catholic Papacy and the United States of America, if they had never heard of those two political entities – just from reading the Bible alone? Do you think such a person would understand the world was round and not flat – just by reading the Bible?
We don’t read the Bible in a vacuum. Part of the reason Adventists came to certain conclusion about prophecy is because they didn’t just studied the scriptures, but they studied, history, archaeology and a whole range of other disciplines. These other ‘lesser lights’ in turned impacted how they interpreted scripture.
Science and other disciples of human observation are tools we all use to help us understand the world, which includes our understanding of the Bible. We are kidding ourselves if we think we can read the Bible as a ‘blank page’ without any outside influences.
Mr22: ‘I believe the Bible does not teach that the Earth is flat and that such things as 'four corners' can be understood as the four cardinal points of direction which is North, South, East and West.’
Stephen Foster: ‘Although the reality is that neither Copernicus, Columbus, nor Galileo were atheists who did not acknowledge God; I am appreciative of your point.’
Mr 22, I totally agree with your reasoning as to why the Bible does not teach the Earth is flat. However, I believe you are missing the point.
My question is about the history of that non-literal interpretation. My question is why did Christians in Gallileo’s time generally read those verses as suggesting a flat earth and yet today all Christians, including the most conservative Christian, interpret those texts in a way ancient readers may not have? Was there some sort of new exegesis tool discovered? I don’t think so.
Did science change the view of scripture or scripture change the view of science? The historical fact is, Christopher Columbus made a scientific discovery that was so categorical that even the most hard-line Christians of that day could not ignore it. It is irrelevant that Christopher Columbus was a Christian or not, which seems important to Stephen Foster. Even if Christopher Columbus was an atheist, his scientific discovery was so ground-breaking and undeniable that it changed people’s views of the world – and how they read Bible texts about the Creator of that world.
As a result of that scientific discovery, people began to read Bible texts in a different way. They no longer saw texts about ‘four corners’ literally meaning four corners but, as you rightly say, as perhaps indicating something else, like four directions of a compass. Slowly, more discoveries were made, such as realising ‘earth’ didn’t just mean the dust beneath our feet as the sole place of land but rather there were millions, if not billions, of other suns and planets.
They slowly began to realise that our Creator and His creation was more magnificent than Christians had previously believed when they thought the earth the centre of the universe. But again, it was a scientific discovery which changed interpretations of scripture – not the other way round.
That change in turn impacted future generations of Christians. Where the Church had once taught (and burnt those who disagreed) these Bible texts proved the world is flat, the Church changed its teachings. That changed tradition. Each new Bible teacher and theologian thereafter, over-and-over form one generation to the next, now offered the new teaching about the non-literal reading of the ‘four corner’ texts.
Now when we come to today, we all grew up in a Church environment where our Bible teachers likewise taught us to read those same texts in a non-literal way. It is tradition (what you might call ‘historic’ in historic Adventism), which is the paradigm by which you read these texts. You don’t read these texts about four corners as being four compass points for no reason in a vacuum – you were taught to read it that way – even if implicitly if not explicitly by being taught the world was round and not flat.
Thus, science changed tradition, and tradition changed the paradigm by which Christians now read those Bible texts in a non-literal way about having ‘four corners.’ Again, it is irrelevant whether or not the original discovers of that scientific discovery were Christians or not, because the scientific proof of a round globe was so overwhelmingly obvious that only an insane person would now think the world is flat.
It would theoretically be possible for any Christian today to return to an ‘ancient’ view of the flat earth. It would also be theoretically for someone to say that pictures from satellites which categorically prove a flat earth is just ‘godless’ science not to be trusted – I guess people do that with the moon landing. It would be theoretically possible for someone to cling to a literal reading of ‘four corners’ of an earth, and argue it is a just supernatural miracle that makes the world just seem round when in fact it is flat. Yes, it would be possible to hold all those theoretical views, and yet, it is funny how no one in their right mind would seem to accept that understanding of a flat-earth reality any more.
So if science changed our interpretation of the scriptures once, why not again?
I said that I was appreciative of your point with regard to “flat earth.” By the same token, 22oct did not miss your point because he addressed and explained how the Bible itself, without regard to scientific discovery, does not teach what many assumed. To the extent that we assume that everyone interpreted the texts you reference that the earth was nonetheless flat, as I said, I get your point.
My question to you is do you see our points that 1) the Bible itself never said that the earth was flat in the first place; and 2) the Bible conceivably describes things that actually happened (as it would appear from eyewitnesses, as in Joshua 10), that Godless science would deny as possibly ever actually occurring?
(This goes to your question as to why Godless science is not the arbiter of how we interpret the Holy Bible.)
Stephen Foster: 'My question to you is do you see our points that 1) the Bible itself never said that the earth was flat in the first place…'
I am not expert in ancient languages. However, it would seem to me that the literal, plain and ordinary meaning suggested the world was flat, which is how people in the ancient world (both the author and the audience) probably understood the world. That said, I admit that the texts are sufficiently ambiguous, so that once Columbus proved without a doubt the world was round, it wasn't that hard to recognise those previous literal interpretations were wrong and could be adapted for a post-round world.
'2) the Bible conceivably describes things that actually happened (as it would appear from eyewitnesses, as in Joshua 10)…'
Joshua 10 describes something as happening for sure. I don't deny that. It isn't clear to me though whether you are reading Joshua 10:13 absolutely literally or not yourself:
'So the sun stood still… The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.'
Even if the Bible is 100% true and this was a real factual and historical event, the language used by the scribes of Joshua are clearly limited and not intended to be scientific. Although we use words like 'standing still' and 'going down' we now know the earth revolves around the sun and it doesn't move around the earth – the earth moves around the sun. However, the sun does revolve around in the Milky Way Galaxy, and the Milky Way Galaxy is moving as well!
The point being, I do believe biblical passages about such events are 'real' and 'true.' However, I also believe the Bible writer is not a scientists nor is God necessarily imparting scientific knowledge to the Bible writer. The Bible writer is experiencing something and then using their own limited words based on their own limited subjective understandings to describe something.
2b) 'that Godless science would deny as possibly ever actually occurring?'
Still don't quite get your fixation on calling science 'Godless'. In any event, as Columbus was supposedly a Christian, so too are there countless scientists who espouse things you don't believe in (namely evolution) who are God-fearing practicing Christians.
I never said I have a rationalistic faith that says science has all the answers. Science is a 'progressive revelation' as is the Bible itself, as is history and archaeology, as is logic and any other 'lesser lights'. When the SDA Church eventually has another prophet or prophets (the Bible predicts this) no doubt they will expounded even further information about things, even to the extent that they will demonstrate Ellen White's own knowledge and message was limited. Similarly, if they have another amazing archaeological discoveries equal to the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls, that too might dramatically change our understanding of the Bible.
I have repeatedly tried to say at best science is a 'lesser light.' If the Bible completely contradicts science then I take the Bible. However, if there is an interpretation of the Bible that contradicts science, and there is another possible interpretation of the Bible that doesn't contradict science, then the interpretation that conforms with science is more likely to be 'truth' – at least present truth (as only Jesus as the Word is absolute truth and everything else is only partial truth).
The million-dollar question is try to be honest with oneself to ascertain whether it is the Bible which is contradicting science and other lesser lights or just our interpretation of the Bible which is the issue. Gallileo could no doubt teach us about the danger of Christians and Christian churches being stuck in dogma thinking they are upholding scripture whereas they are only upholding certain interpretations of scripture based on traditional readings of that scripture.
You seem to admit that the notion of the world being flat or round were two interpretations of the Bible, where science later led Christians to adopt the interpretation that supported science. However, you seem to suggest that there is no ambiguity in the Bible at all that the word 'day' in Genesis 1 or the word 'whole world' in Gen 8, which is why we can't accept science whatever I say. Whereas, I see there is potential ambiguity in the word 'day' and 'world' to allow a reconcilliation between scripture and science without contradiction. The principal contradiction I see between science and faith is not science vs the Bible but merely science vs established Church tradition.
2c) 'This goes to your question as to why Godless science is not the arbiter of how we interpret the Holy Bible.'
First, it isn't clear what you mean by 'godless?' Is a Jewish scientists godless? An agnostic? A muslim? A Roman Catholic? A Pentecostal? I really don't understand your point here – sorry.
Many of today's top historians and archaeologists are effectively 'godless' people. And yet, they make discoveries every day that dramatically expound or alter our understanding the world of the Bible, and thus our understanding of how to read the Bible.
So it is with science. If Columbus and everyone on his ship were 'godless' atheists, it wouldn't have changed the world any less. Our understanding of the nature of creation and the Creator would still have been raddically changed.
Godless science either assumes that there is no God who is responsible for everything as His inspiration has revealed to mankind; or it denies that there is a transcendent God who is responsible for everything as His inspiration has revealed to mankind.
In neither instance are we to take our cues for ‘interpretation’ from such perspectives.
Godless science positions man as the font of any and all wisdom and knowledge.
So what about a Christian scientitst who believes in God and uses scientific tools to support his or her views – including the view that the world is older than 6,000 years? Is that 'Godless' science?
As we have no idea how old the earth is “a Christian scientist who believes in God and uses scientific tools to support his or her views—including the view that the world is older than 6,000 years” is a curious person.
I wouldn’t consider them to be inspired. However, if they’re using Scripture to support their views, I surely can’t condemn them. Personally, I wouldn’t consider that Godless science.
Naturally, I would be quite interested to know what he or she might consider to be legitimate or reliable “scientific tools.”
'As we have no idea how old the earth is “a Christian scientist who believes in God and uses scientific tools to support his or her views—including the view that the world is older than 6,000 years” is a curious person.'
So you are saying we have no idea how old the earth is? I am much more happy with that line of thought, because it is at least far less dogmatic. However, your own comment is curious. It would suggest that any Christian who tries to use science to justify their views is curious. But the Adventist Church's own GRI is full of such people, who indeed do try to use science to support their own views about the age of the earth – in this case 6,000 years. Doesn't your own academic institution have such 'curious' people?
What a curious comment Stephen.
'I wouldn’t consider them to be inspired.'
Stephen, no what is talking about scientists being 'inspired' like prophets. At most, we are talking about people observing the Creator through His creation. It is the creation we are observing which is 'inspired'.
'Naturally, I would be quite interested to know what he or she might consider to be legitimate or reliable “scientific tools.”'
I would too – and I share your interest and concern. It is hard for me to judge 'tools' as I am no scientists myself. However, some 99% of scientists would say so-called 'creation scientists' are not being honest in how they use 'tools'. That is what I read anyway.
"Curious" was not as a pejorative description. Christian scientists who use "scientific tools" to flesh out their views, including that the world is more than 6,000 years old, are people who are curious about that. The Bible is silent on this topic.
I said they are not inspired because I wouldn’t consider their ‘findings’ either on par with or preferable/superior to inspired revelation. (The Bible is silent on this topic.)
It seems you may have taken more from what I said than was intended.
I can’t speak for GRI or their methods, and haven’t heard this topic discussed at Oakwood; not saying it hasn’t been.
When I was a student there in the 70’s, I only took the core requirement science courses (for a history major); affectionately referred to as bonehead science courses.
Stephen, I understand what you are saying here, but let me ask: If some of the Bible writers actually thought that the earth was flat and or square, would that really matter to their message?
Hi Darrel. I believe the Bible writers and their audiences did think the world was flat – I made that clear in my response above. I also think the Bible writers probably didn't know or understood about DNA, germs, quantum physics, or the existence of the American Continents either.
No, I don't think it matters. I don't believe God was giving the Bible writers a scientific revelation when they made such statements as 'four corners' of the earth. Instead, they were transmitting ideas from God, but through 'limited revelation', being using limited human words through the context of their subjective understandings of the world and own cultural filters.
The problem is when people forget God is in the penmaker and instead mistakingly think He is in the pen. God is not dictating word-for-word, as if prophets were mere Holy Secretaries.
Agree!
i have a real problem with Joshua's Sun/Earth phenomena. If the earth stood still, how is it possible that man could have survivedNow if the deceleration when the Earth was rotating at 67 thousand MPH?? It would have been an easier possibility for the sun to stop. The sun rotates 4400 MPH.
Even if something did actually happen, it is clear the Bible writers didn't scientifically know what or how to describe it. There could have been say some type of massive comet or close-by meteor that made another sun in the sky – who knows. I do believe the Bible writers are describing something factually real of a real event. However, the language the Bible writers used were limited by their own limited understanding of the world. The language that Joshua uses suggests he had the usual ancient view that the world was the centre of the universe, which the sun travelled around the earth instead of the other way around.
Why not simply accept that it was a figure of speech which has been used since time immemorial?
Or, if the writer believed it (It was recorded in the Book of Jasher), why should we today have all the beliefs that they did? Have we not advanced at all in our knowledge?
Happy to also accept that it was possibly a figure of speech as well. References to 'four corners' of the earth are no doubt today interpreted as figures of speech, not as scientific facts.
You are right of course also about the 'Book of Jasher'.
Clarification: Earth spinning around the Sun at 67k mph.
A scientist who speeks religious proof is as foolish as a religious believer who seeks scientific proof.
A church who spends millions for scientists to "prove" religious beliefs neither deserves nor is granted recognition by the scientific community. The religious community vainly continues expecting a "breakthrough" of evidence if the GRI continues. It is a fool's errand.
This is not intended to be faint praise, but on this subject, Elaine is, in my opinion, clear, correct, intellectually consistent, and eloquent.
1 Corinthians 3:19
We, on either side of this issue, cannot have it both ways.
Indeed, those who promote the YEC seem to use two simultaneous but contradictory arguments:
1. That the scientific consensus is wrong, and that 'true science' proves the YEC is correct (which is why our Church spends millions of dollars on the BRI to one day try to prove the scientific truth of creationism); but
2. That science can't be trusted as a tool to tell us about origins.
So which is it – can we use science to tell us about God and His creation or not?
Furthermore, even for those who are prepared to accept science's utility, should not approach it dogmatically, any more than we should read the Bible dogmatically. There is progressive revelation in both sources of revelation about Creator and creation.
Stephen,
The question avoids the core issue. This is not about YEC. The earth was without form and void, prior to the initiation of the 6-day creation. There is no telling how long this planet existed in that form — likely billions of years, if not longer.
This is about whether God's explicit claim (Exodus 20:11) to have created the (inhabitable) earth in 6 (evening and morning) days is accurate, or if science requires a cross-examination of God's claims. Moreover, the question is is faith or science the ultimate vehicle for knowing God?
That's where you are wrong Preston my friend. It isn't about faith vs science. It is about promoting one human interpretation of scripture (which happens to conform with the scientific consensus) and another human interpretation of scripture (which happens to contradict with the scientific consensus). I know you can't see that and only see one possible interpretation of Gen 1-3 and Ex 20, whereas I see ambiguities. The sun being created on day 4 is enough for me (as it was for the Church Father Oriegn 1700 years ago) to create some ambiguity as to the proposition that 'evening and morning' means 24-hour periods.
Stephen, My Friend,
This interpretation does not "happen to conform with the scientific consensus," this interpretation is, more, a result of the scientific consensus. For those who choose to believe both, it triggers intellectual contortions and spiritual rationalizations that leave neither realm fully respected.
Creation was a spiritual event (Genisus 1). Spiritual things are spiritually discerned — in contrast to science — or the "natural man".
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned," 1 Corinthians 2:14.
Is there a reliable mechanism for understanding how the Holy Spirit creates matter or for measuring what affect He interactions have on existing matter?
Corrections: "For those who choose to believe both, SCIENCE AND SCRIPTURE it triggers . . . "
"Is there a reliable mechanism for understanding how the Holy Spirit creates matter or for measuring what affect HIS interactions have on existing matter?"
i believe our GOD expects us accept evidence of life in which ever form HE delivers it. HE did not expect us to be blind to all the benefits HE has given to us. i don't believe HE intended us to know all the mysteries of life & HIS creation, only, by studying a book formulated by sinful human hands, a book with allegories, metaprohorical explanations, contradictions by appostles & other scribes, various and sundry outright mistakes, leaving open ended vital questions of much importance by man as HE seeks to connect fully with his CREATOR. And then to be bundled together in many different translations & interpretative volumes. Having stated the above, i still believe the HOLY BIBLE is sufficient for salvation to men who by GOD'S grace, by faith, receive JESUS CHRIST AS LORD. JESUS IS OUR CREATOR,SUSTAINER, REDEEMER, OUR PRINCE of PEACE,THE ALMIGHTY.