Don’t Look at That!
by Mark Gutman, March 24, 2016: Scene 1: The judge explained to the jury that they were about to see and hear a lot of evidence. But no matter what they saw, she told them, they should vote that the defendant was guilty.
Scene 2: The scientist carefully followed scientific methodology until he discovered that three of the ten results didn’t fit his theory. In his reporting of his findings, he barely mentioned the outliers.
Scene 3: The pastor told the church members that their study group would use a book that considered the historical-critical method to be useful. “But,” the pastor warned, “stay away from that method. In fact, hold it. I’ll find a different book that isn’t so risky to our spirituality.”
In all three scenes, a respected authority told people something about “truth” even if it disagreed with evidence. But in the third scene, the authority didn’t want people to investigate some of the evidence in the first place.
In a recent Adventist World article, a writer counseled readers that “We’re to follow the historicist view of prophecy and biblical understanding. Don’t let anyone turn you from the historicist understanding and the historical-biblical interpretation of Scripture.” The writer later explained that “[t]he historical-critical method applied to the Word of God reduces its effectiveness as authoritative.”1 While I am not urging readers to use the historical-critical method, I question the reasonableness of crossing it off your list before you even try it. Refusing to use the historical-critical method because it has led some to new views seems a little like refusing to listen to a witness in court because you fear that she may lead you to change your mind about the guilt of the defendant.
Evidence Kept from You
When an attorney is told to stop presenting a certain line of evidence, the jury is curious. “What are we missing?” When a newspaper presents a sensational medical news story, it frequently leaves out the fact that one hundred other trials of the medication produced no significant benefit. Some readers then get their hopes up over the potential new medical breakthrough, only to be disappointed. And angry, when they discover that they weren’t told the whole story. People used to “soft-core” Bible study may have no idea that there are other ways of approaching the Scriptures.
1 Thessalonians says to “[t]est everything that is said” and to “hold on to what is good.”2 How do we decide that the historical-critical method is bad if we haven’t examined it ourselves? Should we only read material that we have been assured probably won’t change our beliefs? The historical-critical method has problems and benefits, as does the historicist. Does a search for more light limit itself at the start?
I remember reading stories about people interested in Adventist teachings who quit investigating because their priest or pastor warned them away. “Shame on the clergy.” “Shame on the person who quit searching for truth.” Could we be copying the naughty clergy by telling parishioners to stop investigating something because we fear it might lead them to believe differently from us?
“God never asks us to believe, without giving sufficient evidence upon which to base our faith.”3 Sometimes religious people are tempted to limit that evidence. To make sure that others only see the data that convinced them. To make sure troublesome data are not allowed to rear their ugly head.
The Clear Word and Sabbath School lesson quarterlies sell better to church members than books that seriously study the Bible. Plans for a series of books of deeper Bible study to accompany the lesson quarterly had to be shelved because of poor sales. Most church members probably won’t be interested in the historical-critical method, so badmouthing it won’t have much effect. But I have been amazed at what I’ve learned about the Bible from non-Adventist scholars or commentators who were using the historical-critical method. The method just might wake up a few sleepy Bible students. Is it better to let them yawn?
Books sold in Adventist Book Centers tend to be safe and soft. Alden Thompson’s books are a notable exception to the tendency to avoid uncomfortable issues in or about the Bible. A devotional approach leaves many readers scratching their heads over why to bother with most of the Bible. “It’s in the Bible, so it must be important” means that members feel compelled to regard every verse as devotional material superior to anything outside the Bible. Any Bible study method that doesn’t agree with that philosophy is to be shunned.
If we want to learn what the Bible writers are really saying, should we avoid all books written by non-Adventists or books that our pastor doesn’t give a thumbs-up? Whose agenda are we fulfilling by limiting ourselves that way?
Your View vs God’s View
As Robert Price complains about Rick Warren’s writing, “Isn’t he saying that his reading of the Bible ought to govern your whole . . . life? Again, all fundamentalists do this. ‘Well, friend, there’s your view, and then there’s God’s view,’ because God is smart enough to agree with me.”4
In the quotation from Steps to Christ referenced earlier, Ellen White adds, “God has never removed the possibility of doubt. . . . Those who wish to doubt will have opportunity; while those who really desire to know the truth will find plenty of evidence on which to rest their faith.” Do we protect believers by not letting them hear the questions that might cause doubt? Is what seems risky to me probably too risky for them? Do we care when members ask, “Why didn’t somebody tell me these things?”
If a defendant is innocent, a prosecutor has no business hiding evidence that would free him. Scientists who manipulate or ignore evidence in order to arrive at a preapproved conclusion don’t help. How do theologians or pastors help people spiritually? By helping them avoid whatever might make a desired conclusion less likely?
If you’re sitting on a jury, please listen to the presentations of both sides, even if you form an opinion quickly. If you’re a scientist, pay attention to the data that don’t fit your hypothesis. And if you’re a Bible student, don’t toss a method of looking at the Scriptures before you even give it a chance, especially when it might open your eyes to many things you’ll never otherwise learn.
1Ted N. C. Wilson, “Faithful Followers Because He Is Faithful,” Adventist World, February 2016, 9.
21 Thessalonians 5:21 New Living Translation
3Ellen White, Steps to Christ (various publishers, first published in 1892), 105.
4Robert Price, The Reason-Driven Life: What Am I Here on Earth For? (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2006), 64.
Mark,
The underlying question in what you described is: How much do we trust God? If your faith in Him is supreme then we will not fear when we encounter scriptural issues. Instead of fearing that we might have to change our views we will see God leading us into greater knowledge of Him and drawing us closer to Him.
I appreciated your mention about the jury wanting to know more. Some years ago I sat on a jury in a case where we all wanted to know why the victim had a large scar on one cheek. Had the defendant injured her as part of what he was charged with doing? We sent the question to the judge and the answer was that we did not need to know because it was not related to the case. Sometimes we get hung-up on asking God questions about things that don’t matter when He has other, more important and useful things that He wants to teach us.
In 1958, I told LdS (Mormon) missionaries I had decided to employ the principle of prior reference–the principle that anything purported to be special revelation should be evaluated and interpreted by earlier revelation. I explained to them that they were doing the opposite of that and that doing what they were doing leaves a person with only his feelings as a guide by which to choose among the many who claim to have modern revelation.
2,000 years ago, many Hebrews who rejected Jesus as the Messiah thought they were employing that principle when what they were actually doing was evaluating the gospel of Jesus based on rabbinical interpretations of earlier revelation.
In the twenty-first century, many people who reject the message of the millennial kingdom being an heavenly kingdom think they are employing the principle of prior refrence (i.e. they think that the doctrine of the millennial kingdom being an earthly kindom is based on the Bible) when what they are actually doing is evaluating the message of an heavenly kingdom based on the Scofield Bible Notes (or other commentators who use the futurist method of Bible interpretation).
In 12-1/2 years in SdA schools, I wasn’t told anything about methods of Bible interpretation. I think I was deliberately given the impression that differences in doctrine among Christians was because other people than SdA were either “not sincere” or biblically illiterate. (To be continued.)
I grew up thinking it was our denomination’s policy that doctrine is based on the Bible only.
In the 21st century, how many members of our denomination think denominational policy is for doctrine to be based only on Ellen White’s interpretation of the Bible? Inspired it may be (I believe it to be) but that is like saying that the Hebrew Bible should be interpreted by the Greek additions to it. If we fail to use the principle of prior reference (interpret the Gospels and the Epistles and the Apocalypse by the Hebrew Bible) our “adventist” understanding would be very different than what it is.
Much of SdA “evangelism” is utterly failing to mention, let alone adequately addressing, questions about methods of interpretation.
If the goal is merely to acquire “adherents”, why bother?
On the other hand, if the goal is to encourage personal religion and personal study of the evidence (an absolute requisite for anyone being prepared for what lies before us), children who are raised in Christian homes (i.e. where daily Bible reading is the norm) should be able to understand some basic things about methods of Bible interpretation before they are in their teens and be able to discuss such methods intelligently while they are yet in their teens.
Is there any reason why any adult who is truly protestant (devoted to PERSONAL Bible study) should be incapable of understanding such things within a year of being introduced to the advent movement?
Mark,
I don’t mind reading historical-critical exegesis, but I find myself usually dismissing it because it does exactly what Elder Wilson says it does: It diminishes Scripture’s authority. It is sometimes very interesting and helpful because it gets you to look at a text from a different angle. I remember a book or article using the historical-critical method to assert Abraham wasn’t truly a monotheist. I had never noticed the significance of the phrase, “God most High” in such a context.
But historians are not an authority on sacred history. When they purport to be – it really ceases to be sacred history.
The judge never says to the jury, “find the defendant guilty.” But in court a tremendous amount of learning and energy goes into applying the rules of evidence during the trial. All evidence is not admissible evidence. All the officers of the court are vigilant to make sure the rules of evidence are applied. The truth is not the object – a fair trial is the object.
Scripture, if it is authority, also has to be protected by rules of evidence. You have to believe what it says. You can argue about what it says, but you can’t say: I don’t believe what it says. Or say, It doesn’t apply in this day and age, unless it is in the text. The Bible is God’s Holy Word and God does not change.
Bible students have to establish and maintain the rules of evidence with rigor & precision. Just like the courts. Just like the scientific method.
How is history different than religious history, William? By what means does pollution by honest study occur?
Bugs,
Sacred history is like, “Jesus said it, I believe it, that settles it”. Secular history asks questions like, “Did Jesus really say that?” “Did he really walk on water?” “Did he rise from the dead or did his disciples steal his body?
One studies sacred history as a revelation. Secular history is a ‘whodunit’.
Sacred history is God speaking to us, revealing himself. Secular history requests nudity. It wants to see everything uncovered. We dig up bones in secular history. Sacred history lets the dead rest in peace.
Faith isn’t restrained by facts. Even more, it doesn’t want to face them. It, and you, William, don’t have to. It is therefore the world of make-believe, that you know exactly what is “settled,” by what “Jesus said.”
William, Prof Shlomo Sand of Hebrew University, who had a bias in favour of finding evidence for the exodus, has dug up a lot of sand on the presumed route of the Exodus and has found zero evidence of an exodus. Where does that leave ‘sacred history’ of said presumed exodus?
Add to that many other Old Testament accounts in question first because of factual errors in the stories, and second because there are no extraneous archaeological or recorded verifications, and third, their obvious allegorical nature. There are no contemporary evidences of Moses, or even Jesus, for example.
Bugs and Serge,
Where does that leave ‘sacred history’ of said presumed exodus?
It leaves the Exodus in the trash can. And it proves nothing. I suppose it proves he can’t find evidence. Sacred history is not diminished by facts. But this exodus business is a good example of how the search for facts diminishes the authority of sacred history. If the historian uses his ‘facts’ to obviate the story and its authority, then we are left with Bug’s dilemma: There are no contemporary evidences of Moses, or even Jesus, for example.
So with no ‘evidence’ everyone is free to make up their only personal Jesuses and Moseses. Or better yet – just admit that they never existed or if they did nothing can be known of them. The Sacred history is reduced to toilet paper. Use it for anything you want. It has less authority than the Sears catalog.
Just the facts. You know nothing Bugs. Nothing at all. You are just a jumble of bio-chemo-electric impluses that will end soon enough. You think its love, but its just hormones. You aren’t worth more than a piece of toast. Its just opinion to think otherwise. At least toast doesn’t stink when we throw it out.
William, I am sure you recognise that SDAs are in a real bind as far as dividing ‘sacred’ and ‘secular’ history in the biblical record. They insist that the OT stories are literal, secular history. Therefore, they have no grounds for complaint with the rational tools of the historico-critical method. They just don’t like the results.
Evangelists are keen to advertise that ‘dead men do tell tales,’ but they don’t like it when those dead men tell truths which are quite the opposite of what the evangelist wishes. Or, in Shlomo’s case, there are no men, dead or living, who tell the tales SDAs imagine as historical fact.
Indeed, not only is there no evidence for an exodus, no evidence of Hebrew people in the land of Goshen, there IS evidence for the contemporaneous existence of Semitic tribes inhabiting the hills of Palestine, (which was part of Egypt’s territory at that time btw), and worshipping the Asherah in the groves, which is referenced, as an aberration, in the OT.
Does that mean the OT story has no value? As ‘history,’ its toast. As spiritual allegory, its powerful. Its mythic value is far greater than mere history. See 1Cor 10 and Galatians 4.21-31, esp v 24: “which things are an allegory…”
Z’ev ben Shimon Halevi also does a wonderful job of this approach in his book Kabbalah and Exodus.
(I’ve seen the Rock which Moses struck, btw. Its at Wadi Mussa above Petra and still flows with sweet water, from a Rock which is cleft top to…
Mark,
Don’t make up your own accounting rules. Follow the GAAP, or you’ll get your tail in the ringer.
This message from Pastor Dave Kettlesen of Chattanooga is on point:
https://vimeo.com/135811574
I appreciate the reasonableness of your sentiments, Mark. Who could really disagree? But there are many different types of knowledge and many different pathways to knowledge.
For example, in a court of law, the Bible would be pretty much inadmissible as evidence of the truth of what it says. It’s hearsay. And there are good reasons that hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible in court. But for most of our opinions and information relied on in daily living we have nothing but hearsay to inform us.
Jurors are also told to look at the bias or motives of witnesses before deciding what,if any weight, to give to witness testimony. If they find a witness to have been wilfully false or completely biased, jurors may disregard the testimony without assaying the merits of what was said.
It sounds great to say that God never asks us to believe without giving us evidence on which to base our faith. But is it true? Look at Genesis. What evidence did Adam and Eve have that God was telling them the truth about the Tree? What evidence did Noah have that a flood was coming?
As humans, we just can’t investigate all fact and truth claims. Those who say, “Stay away from certain methods for interpreting Scripture,” do so because they distrust the motives and spiritual integrity of those who advance that methodology. Are they right? I don’t know. But I do know that we all have to rely on folks we choose to trust, because usually we can’t examine all the evidence.
You say: Look at Genesis. What evidence did Adam and Eve have that God was telling them the truth about the Tree? What evidence did Noah have that a flood was coming?
Nathan, you are usually so reasonable with your responses. However, I feel you slipped on this one. Adam and Eve had abundant evidence–they knew God and talked with Him; they knew He created them. In a paradise setting prepared by Him, they had all they needed. They were entirely without excuse! Noah, as well had learned by experience to trust God.
Nathan, Significant parts of the New Testament are offered as eye witness accounts, especially the testimony of John.
The only writer of the NT that we can verify as having actually heard Jesus’ words are John. Luke even begins his Gospel saying that “many of us have drawn up accounts of the even the events that have been handed down to us by those who were eyewitnesses.” None were written prior to 60-70 A.D. which would indicate that had they been eyewitnesses they would have lived far past the average life span at that time of less than 50 years of age.
Paul never saw or heard Christ but relied on others’ reports.
Schilt “But I do know that we all have to rely on folks we choose to trust, because usually we can’t examine all the evidence.”
There is profound truth in that statement, maybe more than a fast reader will discern. Thanks for that thoughtful statement of truth.
It is not the rule that hermeneutics becomes a discussion only after a religion has settled its ‘fundamental beliefs’? At that point hermeneutics becomes the the rules of interpretation that are required to perpetuate the results of the assumed inspiration of early believers who settled the ‘fundamental beliefs’ by simply reading the bible collectively, innocently, and without the aid of hermeneutics.
Paul’s primal assertion to Timothy regarding the inspiration of ‘all scripture’ is absolutely without any hermeneutical conditions.
Let’s just say, No, to hermeneutics and see what inspiration delivers to us as we are inspired as we read. This is exactly how ‘fundamental beliefs’ came about back in the day, at the expense of fundamental beliefs others embraced at our expense.
Why do we believe inspiration has become an historical event, when the fundamental believers denied that openly. In short, let’s joyfully and blatantly welcome whatever Inspiration would have us know today, by following the identical method of the long-ago fundamental believers of Seventh-day Adventism. Those were exciting and spiritually productive times. Talk about revival and reformation, let’s go back to those wonderfully hermeneutic-free days of our originally fundamental believers.
I am not sure how you define “historical-criticism.” It seems there are different levels–those who weave theories about what was known and unknown in the past and come out denying the meaning of an event or passage or that it happened at all. This is questionable and usually done by nonbelievers in a personal God. Then there is the method taking into account the context of an account such as the customs and worldviews of the ancients that requires research and study. It does not throw out the spiritual meaning or that the event happened (though not necessarily exactly as reported thus allowing for small inconsistencies that confuse the absolutist thinker). We need to be flexible in interpretation and accept our own subjectivity which is not found in extreme historical criticism or fundamentalism.
The Anchor Commentary on Daniel is historical critical methodology at its worst [best?]. Really not much more than a hatchet job on Scripture.
It is largely Adventists who insist, because of their unique interpretation of Daniel, that it was written ca. 500 years A.D. But even the Jews, who wrote the OT, knew that it was written no earlier than ca. 160 A.D. and was referring to the destruction of their temple in the near future. There is absolutely nothing in its text that indicates it was written for those living more than 2000 years later;’ it is a twisted perversion of Scripture to justify the Adventist founders first mistake that it was a prophecy of the exact time and coming of Jesus. There is absolutely no possible way to know what is going on in heaven, nor even where heaven is.
Elaine, Every reader of Daniel’s prophecies knows it applies to the future. And nobody knows anything about future. How can you date the book 160 AD? Typo?
Jesus Christ believed the prophecies of Daniel: When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:).
Prophecies are certainly intended for hearers in every age to believe, even 2000 years later. Prophecies are not secret knowledge about future events, per se, they are best understood as promises to God’s elect.
Bro. Abbott,
Even more important than seeing prophecies as promises to God’s elect is knowing that you can trust God because of the evidence He gives in prophecy and fulfillment that He is in control.
William Noel,
I don’t disagree. But its complicated. You can do like the Pharisees and Doctors of the law and be so confident of your understanding of the prophecies you will miss the Messiah when He is standing in your midst.
Knowledge and Interpretation of Bible prophecy is too often substituted for trusting in God to fulfill His prophecies. Perhaps in ways we don’t anticipate.
” But even the Jews, who wrote the OT, knew that it was written no earlier than ca. 160 A.D.”
1) Eight published fragments from the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) incorporate substantial portions of or excerpts from, every chapter of the book of Daniel, as we have it now from the LXX and the MT. These DSS fragments generally date to ca 100 BC. This is convincing evidence that the book of Daniel had achieved “canonization” status at least a century before the birth of Christ. Would a book have achieved “canonization” status within one generation after being written?
2) In the Wisdom of Sirach, generally dated to ca 190 BC, Jeshuah ben Sira quotes extensively from OT sources (as well as other Jewish literature) including one strong excerpt from the book of Daniel. From the context it is clear that the Sirach is citing Daniel and not vice versa. Earlier (though less direct) literary allusions to the book of Daniel have been found as far back as ca 300 BC.
(continued)
3) The Cyropaedia by Xenophon, refers to an “older king” and a “younger king” who ruled Babylon at the time of its demise. However it does not identify either of these kings, only that they were alive during the time of Cyrus. For many centuries scholars dismissed this account as fictional, because Herodotus identified Nabonidus as the last king of Babylon. For two millennia, only from the book of Daniel could one identify Belshazzar as the final regent of Babylon, and infer (from his offer of “third in the kingdom”) that he was the “younger king” mentioned by Xenophon but overlooked by Herodotus. The “rest of the story” has only become apparent over the last century-and-a-half by translating a trove of cuneiform unearthed by archaeologists.
These are but three arguments that the book of Daniel is pre-Maccabean in origin.
We need avoid two “extremes”. 1) The assumption that if someone doesn’t agree with us about the meaning of, for example, something Jesus said, that he “isn’t sincere”. 2) The assumption that, because different people see different shades of meaning in, for example, something Jesus said, agreement isn’t possible and that, therefore, we should not even try to agree about anything.
Jesus said, ” I will come again and receive you unto myself that where I am, there you may be also.” I could say, “Jesus said it. I believe it and that settles it.”
I don’t say that. Why?
Because not everyone understands those words the way I do. The baptist teacher of a methodist Sunday school class paraphrased the words of Jesus thusly, “…that where you are, there I may be also.” He wants people to believe the millennial kingdom will be an earthly kingdom so he was using language to (in his words), “make it easier to understand”.
It would be easy enough to say that he isn’t sincere or that he hasn’t studied his Bible enough but I’m not willing to do either of those things. I still hope he will come to realize, before it is too late, that the millennial kingdom is an heavenly one but accusing him of dissimulation is likely to be counterproductive.
In the mean time, I’d like to promote the gospel in company with people who a) don’t teach that Jesus is a created being, b) don’t teach that humans are the result of evolution, c) don’t teach that we are saved by…
Wasn’t Jesus reported to say “The Kingdom is among you”? Was He referring to Himself or some long-future kingdom in heaven? (Luke 17:21; 21:31; Mark 1:15)
“Was He referring to Himself or some long-future kingdom in heaven?”
Elaine, the answer to your excellent question is Yes and Yes. This is not an either/or proposition.
In the NT the Kingdom of Heaven is wherever Jesus reigns, because He is the King. When Jesus was on earth the Kingdom of Heaven was among those whom He addressed. It was “at hand” for those who were invited to meet and greet Him. It was “within your” for those who accepted Him. When He ascended to Heaven, “seated at the right hand of God”, it was in Heaven, while remaining “within” His followers on earth. When He returns it will be “on earth as it is in heaven”. After sin is banished it will be literally Everywhere, throughout all natutal and supernatural realms of existence.
“Was He referring to Himself or some long-future kingdom in heaven?”
Elaine, the answer to your excellent question is Yes and Yes. This is not an either/or proposition.
In the NT the Kingdom of Heaven is wherever Jesus reigns, because He is the King. When Jesus was on earth the Kingdom of Heaven was among those whom He addressed. It was “at hand” for those who were invited to meet and greet Him. It was “within your” for those who accepted Him. When He ascended to Heaven, “seated at the right hand of God”, it was in Heaven, while remaining “within” His followers on earth. When He returns it will be “on earth as it is in heaven”. After sin is banished it will be literally Everywhere, throughout all natural and supernatural realms of existence.
Promoting Christ among other Christians has always been traditional easy targets for Adventists. Promoting Christianity AND Adventism is far more difficult and less successful with non-Christians: agnostics, polytheists and worshipers of other gods.
“It would be easy enough to say that he isn’t sincere ………”
Well, sincerity is nice. But in a theological difference, no body cares who is sincere or who is not. We want the truth, and this is all that matters. We need no judge motive, but we must judge doctrine. Is it true, or not? This is the only question to be determined. And the bible is a “system of truth” that does not allow for every “Tom, Dick, and Harry’s” opinion. With some “I’m OK, you’re OK” theology, let’s all just get along.
The Truth is embodied in a Person, not a Book. The Book may contain Truth but Jesus Christ the God-man IS Truth.
I AM the Way, the Truth and the Life.
Jim,
Very true. But how is the person Jesus Christ apprehended? Is it the church that gives us Jesus Christ? Perhaps. Does the church give us Christ through the Mass and its elements? Or does the does the Church give and receive Christ through the Holy Spirit tested by the Holy Scriptures?
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
People naturally see through different lenses when reading the same verses. That is why we have so many denominations, and so many factions within denominations.
Two people can walk across the same bridge and see the same sunset, but they have actually walked across two separate bridges and seen two distinct sunsets: because no two people see anything exactly the same way.
Two intelligent people can read the same Bible verse and see two totally different (even opposite) meanings. Both can be 100% sincere and fully convinced that he or she is right.
Remember the parable of the six blind men who tried to understand what an elephant looks like, by feeling different parts of the elephant’s body? One thought an elephant is like a pillar; another like a rope; another like a leaf, etc.
Then the king explained to them: “All of you are right. The reason every one of you is telling it differently is because each one of you touched the different part of the elephant. Actually the elephant has all the features you mentioned.”
O how they cling and wrangle, some who claim
For preacher and monk the honored name!
For, quarreling, each to his view they cling.
Such folk see only one side of a thing.
“Two intelligent people can read the same Bible verse and see two totally different (even opposite) meanings. Both can be 100% sincere and fully convinced that he or she is right.”
That may be true but usually one of them is either semi literate or blinded by preconceived formed by, for example, EGW.
preconceived opinion
I would claim that we are all blind men, even in our most enlightened moments. The poet understood this far better than the preacher or the monk. And we could add scientists and engineers and philosophers and scholars and teachers to his list.
Those who are most certain of what they know, generally do not appreciate how much more they do not really know.
“What we know is a drop, what we don’t know is an ocean.” (generally attributed to Sir Isaac Newton)
As the poet said:
It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.
So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!
I get the idea that it’s not so much who is right or wrong, but more a problem of being in an unhelpful bind of philosophy. Look out into the cosmos with the Hubble space telescope and see far back in time, almost back to the big bang. See the beauty and the wonder. But we do not see angels. We do not see the gates of Heaven. With our scientific way of thinking that owes a lot to Aristotle and his descendants, we know that whatever can be known is there for our senses to observe and interpret. So the logical conclusion, in the light of an absence of observable angels or Heavenly gates, is that there are no angels or Heavenly gates. If it’s not observable then it’s not real.
Try a different tack. A view that accepts the basic validity of our senses, but with Plato perceives that our senses may limited. Some things lie between or beyond our senses. It will not bring technology like the scientific method has. It will not explain away the important things like Heaven, angels or love.
For the past hundred years physicists have known that light has both particle and wave nature. It comes in chunks, but under the right conditions will interfere with itself like waves on a pond. The properties of light depend on the application. The way we look at our world should also depend on the application. If we get it backwards the cosmos could look like the earth centered system of Ptolemy, or human interaction could be limited to the behaviorism of B. F. Skinner. Would it hurt to try?
Well and truly stated.
We need both Plato and Aristotle. We need to learn to view reality through the “eye of (empirical) facts” and also the “eye of faith”. I call this the mental principle of “binocular vision”.
If you reject either viewpoint very bad things can and do happen.
When I was a small boy (1940s), adventists spoke much–even from the pulpit–about the deleterious effect of basing a person’s religious beliefs, religious practices or religious prohibitions on “tradition”.
Well, it seems to me that there is a tradition that is alive and well in our denomination–the tradition of dogmatism. In response to something I said or wrote, one SdA pastor observed that an evangelist who isn’t dogmatic won’t have much success.
I guess that depends on how a person measures success. If the goal is to get people to trust an organization, that may be true. But if the goal is to encourage people to trust the Lord and his written word, that’s another story. In that case, dogmatism is actually counterproductive.
Here’s the thing: Christian unity doesn’t consist in agreement about everything. For sure it doesn’t consist of everyone explaining everything exactly the same. Christian unity consists of emphasizing basic doctrines and allowing that the Lord may have called other Christians to emphasize some doctrines more than we do.
Unity among adventists can never be achieved by creedalism and dogmatism. Unity among adventists CAN, however, be realized to the extent that we focus the doctrine that is the basis of the advent movement–the doctrine that the millennial kingdom will be an heavenly kingdom–not an earthly one.
“Unity among adventists CAN, however, be realized to the extent that we focus the doctrine that is the basis of the advent movement–…….”
Well, I guess we could all say…….DUH…….
The obvious problem is to define just what ” is the basis of the advent movement–…….”?
What ever it is, or was, as the case may be, is what is “up for grabs” and everybody and his brother wants to tell us just what it is.
Others assume we don’t have any, and never did. So your comment has no viable basis for discussion. You state the obvious as though it is some great new revelation that no one ever thought of before. When in fact, everybody understands the problem is in defining just what is Seventh-day Adventism? It has transitioned into some non-definable church community that is now trying desperately to find out who or what it is.
All we affirm for sure is this, there is total and mass confusion on every level of identity from top down. And who is going to solve this dilemma? Apparently, no one.
Bill,
God is love. Some people think any “doctrine” beyond that one is extraneous.
Jesus is redeemer and savior. Some people think to add that he is creator is divisive.
The doctrines of justification by grace alone through faith alone, the primacy of scripture and the priesthood of all believers are so closely related that to deny one of them is to deny all of them. For centuries, protestants considered to be not Christian anyone who denied one or all of those doctrines.
In the eighteenth century, the Lord called some believers to an emphasis on sanctification by grace alone through faith alone.
Some believers emphasize believers baptism.
Has the Lord called you to a special emphasis among the many truths about himself? If so, what?
Do you know other Christians who have been called to a similar emphasis?
You (individually or collectively) could be intimidated by the charge that what you believe the Lord has called you to emphasize isn’t important.
Don’t be intimidated.
“Has the Lord called you to a special emphasis among the many truths about himself? If so, what?”
Roger, there are many things up in the air from the gospel and how it is defined and applied, and what is the definition of sin?
1888 did not really resolve anything and the conflict was simply put on the “back burner.” EGW said many things, and some of them added to the confusion, even though she herself had a clear perception of the whole affair. I assume God let it go at that time with the reality that at sometime in the future it would be eventually sorted out. In fact, this is imperative for any viable unity so the SDA movement can accomplish what God intended in the beginning. When the church opted for Pluralism to avoid division, then it was and is, impossible for any final unity. Thus we have mass confusion with no hope of any consensus in church doctrine.
But I would add this comment. The doctrine or original sin is a necessity to explain for any final unity concerning sin and atonement. It doesn’t seem likely that this will be the case, but, who knows? Any ultimate doctrine is divisive and thus not likely that any doctrine will be advocated as a non-negotiable truth in the end.
So, “love and acceptance” is the only final and ultimate doctrine the church will embrace in the end. The Sabbath will be abandon in the end. It is far to divisive for the modern leadership to hold control of the mass majority.
“original sin” is a nice or not-so-nice theological slogan – nothing more and nothing less.
You will not find this slogan in the Bible. I have read the Book cover-to-cover many times, and it simply does not appear there. Early church fathers invented this slogan to denote their understanding of the ontology of fallen humanity. And for much of the Christian Era “theologicrats” have debated its actual meaning. That some wish to continue this debate until “every foe is vanquished” is itself indicative of our dismal condition.
I submit that we would be better-served by focusing on the Goodness of God rather than the Depravity of Humans. Let us not be obsessed with describing the Disease, but rather on applying the Cure.
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
Can even two, agree fully on the subject of the Gospel message of Jesus, the Christ?? It is all about the Master of the multiverses, Jesus, the Almighty. The message of the Gospel is the Grace and perfect LOVE of the Christ, who created us in Love, sustains us in His Love, and in His Mater plan will
arrive on time to rescue His beloved. And as promised, He will restore “our immortal souls. Would that the conservatives, liberals, progressives, and everyone on Earth could come together to praise Him. “Make a joyful noise unto the Lord, all ye lands. Serve the Lord with gladness, Come into His
presence with singing. Know ye the Lord, He is God. Enter into His gates with thanksgiving, and into His courts with praise: be thankful unto Him, and bless His name. For the Lord is good; His mercy is everlasting: and His truth endureth to ALL GENERATIONS”
Some have seen strong parallels between the Papacy and the GC Presidency, in and after the San Antonio session. With good reason, some have labeled it the “GC Papacy” – http://TinyUrl.com/GCpapacy
I was born and raised in the SDA Church and I attended its schools through college. My name is still “on the books,” but in the past couple of years, I have to come to understand that there is no “one true church.” Any church claiming to be the “one true church,” and focusing on a list of doctrines (more than a love relationship with Christ), is a cult.
Now I understand that the SDA church, and others like it, are basically business enterprises similar to multi-level marketing companies, where the real goal is to increase membership in order to bring in more tithe money. In order to inspire other Christians to join this tithe-generating system, the SDA church tries to convince them that they will be lost if they don’t join this “one true church.” Then it tries to scare them from leaving by fostering an “us vs. them” attitude where the world is divided into SDA and “non-SDA”–and everything “non-SDA” is bad. This is a cultic strategy.
I am glad to be in a non-denominational fellowship now, where the focus is on falling in love with Jesus, loving God with all my heart, and loving my neighbor as myself, “for God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son.” I have found the freedom of grace and Christ’s promise: “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.”
“I am glad to be in a non-denominational fellowship now, where the focus is on falling in love with Jesus, loving God with all my heart, and loving my neighbor as myself, “for God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son.” I have found the freedom of grace and Christ’s promise…..”
So like I said to Roger……..”there you have it. What else is new?”
I am glad to be in an Adventist Christian fellowship now, where the focus is on falling in love with Jesus, loving God with all my heart, and loving my neighbor as myself. These are indeed the most important privileges and responsibilities we have been given.
From the Torah to the Apocalypse the Bible makes clear that the authentic bases for worship are gratitude to God as Creator and Redeemer and Restorer. Any system of religious belief or practice that is focused on gaining God’s favor or averting God’s wrath is pagan. You have rightly identified as Cults those who claim to have a system for gaining “most favored” status with God. Adventism can and sometimes does readily fall into this trap.
The Bible does contain a lot of good information about how to know God and how to live within God’s will. And here I have found that my Adventist identity serves me well. Adventism does not have any special Status with God, but we do have a special Mission. Our Mission is to share what we have discovered about the Character of God to a world that desperately needs a clearer view of God.
The beauty of the magnificent photos speak to me . The birds, the trees, the skies, the seas; the bison, the horse, the hiker, the bees; the panoramas, the horizon, the color of leaves: all this
breathtaking beauty the Master gives freely, awakes in my heart, His love i cherish dearly.
While walking Mitzy today, i thought how blessed i was having on the leash, a drop dead gorgeous
white BichonPoodle, instead of a snarling biting tyranosaurus. What a wierd thought. Then i thought further, of the protective power of the Almighty. We are His, and He is our peaceful provider, in a world becoming more destructive each day. Praise Him. for His banner over us is
love.
The earliest manuscripts of Matthew don’t include the first two chapters which proclaims the virgin birth. The “prophecy” of Isaiah 7:14, was improperly translated from Hebrew by the LXX (Septuagint, c. 200 BC) as a virgin. The Hebrew word is for young woman. It was intended for the Jews and applied to their situation in the 8th century BC. Paul, the singular, most prolific NT writer, never mentions it. That’s because it hadn’t been determined and Isaiah 7:14 mistranslation hadn’t be misapplied yet.
The Gospels weren’t written by any eyewitness. They were written well after they all would have died, Matthew and Luke are largely borrowed from Mark, each was written by upper educated authors in Greek probably from Rome, not in Aramaic, the language of Jesus. They were four of about 200 “gospels” in circulation, were written between 60 and 100 AD. And they had no name, were anonymous, without alleged authorship until well after 100 AD. The author of Matthew wasn’t Jewish by the religious errors he included. There are many errors and different accounts of the same events.
So, William, when you say you believe what God said, what did he actually say?
Humbly, Toast.
(aka Bugs).
On what basis do you say that “the earliest manuscripts of Matthew don’t include the first two chapters”? Even Bart Ehrman (who questions the first two chapters of Luke) only says about the authenticity of the first two chapters of Matthew that “it’s debated,” and he doesn’t “find the evidence [for their later attachment] as persuasive as with Luke.”
Mark: Here is one of my sources for my comment: http://www.humanreligions.info/gospels.html
I have several of Ehrman’s books and am aware of his statements in both cases. There are dozens more books dealing with the issues of early scriptural translations and development. Among them are plenty of apologists who struggle with explanations, most futile.
There is no scholarly dispute over the incorrect LXX translation of maid to virgin in Isaiah 7:14 from Hebrew to Greek.
My intent was to show William Abbot that when you wade into the ocean of assertions of “what God said,” the fact sharks joyfully await you.
Excluding the first two chapters of Matthew leaves us without the Genealogy of Jesus Christ and crucial prophetic witness to His birth. Not only that, the prophetic “seventy weeks” of Daniel 9:24-27 also corresponds with the “14 generations” between the captivity of Babylon to the time of Christ, as described in Matthew 1:17: Seventy weeks/sevens equals 490 years (Dan. 9:24); 14 x 35 years [generations] = 490 years (Matt. 1:17).
With Matthew chapters 1 and 2 and Daniel 9 we have two immutable witnesses to Christ’s coming and fulfillment of the work He was to accomplish for His people:
“24 “Seventy weeks are determined for your people and for your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sins, to make reconciliation for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy.” Dan. 9:24.
Jesus Christ fulfilled all these requirements through His life, death and resurrection.
I wonder who is behind this concept that the “earliest manuscripts of Matthew don’t include the first two chapters”?
DD: The first problem, Daniel was written as applied to his time, not a prophecy of Christ. You with countless others have hijacked, removed it from its context because it fits a narrative you enjoy. I have just finished two classes on the history of Judaism from its birth through the life of Christ and every prophet addressed the issues of his time. Yes, you are in a multitude of “believers” who share the convenience of finding Scriptural words to meet your expectations. So this genealogy was added as a device later, well after the book was first written, by someone or others, who share your need for pedigree affirmations.
Second, Christ’s Davidic lineage is therefore moot since the prophecies weren’t given to predict him.
http://www.holybooks.info/matthew.html
For two thousand years Jewish apologists have disputed the purloined Old Testament Scriptures in support of Christ as Messiah. Adventist believe they are correct on the ten commandments and the Sabbath, but wrong on their understanding of their prophets?
None of this harms being a Christian. The inconveniences of facts are universally trumped by belief.
Bugs, you wrote: “Daniel was written as applied to his time, not a prophecy of Christ”
I don’t follow you. Are you saying Dan. 9:24-27 is not a prophecy of the Christ, who was to come?
“Second, Christ’s Davidic lineage is therefore moot since the prophecies weren’t given to predict him.”
No doubt Christ had no human father; nevertheless the human lineage led to Mary His mother.
If not to point to Christ, then what was the purpose of the prophecies throughout the Holy Scriptures?
Yes, DD, correct, follow me. There is a context to every scripture and none peer hundreds or thousands of years ahead. They all, every one, apply to their time. Not facts, but tradition, a rear view mirror search for desired results in wild claims outside the purview of the author. The results is convenient interpretations to support cherished presuppositions. And this tradition is so firmly established the facts of it aren’t likely to trump the myth of it. I understand that. It can even be said to be a harmless myth since it supports a religious point of view. Christian apologists embrace myth by proclaiming it as fact. But morphing by proclamation is a dream without effect. And a gigantic collection of synchronized opinions over eons supporting error don’t transform myth into facts.
You have to go to Jewish sources for the proper explanation of Daniel 9:24-27. The word Messiah is mistranslated, not a noun, but an adjective, meaning “anointed.” Jewish apologist maintain it applies to anointing the inner chamber of the Holy Temple, the Holy of Holies. For a complete review: https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/answers/jewish-polemics/texts/daniel-9-a-true-biblical-interpretation/.
And the linage of Jesus through his mother violates every paternity tradition of Judaism. Isaiah 7:14 with the word maiden is mistranslated as virgin. One eager to find gold will always find it, even if only pyrite, fool’s gold. Belief functions in spite of facts.
Bugs, interesting you should post a “Jewish” web site explaining Daniel 9. The Jews don’t accept Jesus as the Christ; so why would one seek their interpretation regarding Messianic prophecies? Who is the Interpreter of the Holy Scriptures, man, or the Holy Spirit?
In relation to Dan. 9:24, the author of the article states: “This prophesy also included a description of events that would unfold if the Jewish people did not repent properly.”:
The Jews didn’t need to do anything—Christ did it all. It was not dependent on the Jews for Dan. 9:24 to be fulfilled entirely according to God’s determined prophetic end.
Note that it says “determined” in verses 24 and 27. God is the One who “determines” the end, that is, that which He has pre-determined, or foreordained through Christ. It has nothing to do with the Jews or anyone else. The plan of God has been fulfilled through His Son Jesus the Christ. He [Jesus] has “finish the transgression, to make an end of sins, to make reconciliation [atonement] for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to anoint the Most Holy”. He accomplished all this for those who are being called by God. Jesus Christ is the “Anointed” by the Holy Spirit. And He has entered the Presence of God the Father—the Most Holy Place (Heb.9:11-15).
Continued.
The lineage of Jesus through Mary His mother does not “violate every paternity tradition of Judaism”: Did a “man” give birth to Him? It’s the end of the line; of course Jesus the Christ was born of a virgin, as the Gospels testify.
It has always been assumed Luke was tracing Jesus’ genealogy through Mary, but that isn’t derived from the text itself. It is assumed because the linage differs from the genealogy listed by Matthew. Both Matthew and Luke purport to trace the linage through Joseph.
Bugs-Larry,
By your line of reasoning nothing what soever from the OT could possibly pertain to Jesus Christ, because Jews “own” the OT and reserve the exclusive right to interpret and apply it as they alone see fit. And of course, since they do not agree amongst themselves regarding the meaning of the OT, Christians can only sit as spectators in a multi-way religious/political debate.
But wait! There is more.
“You have to go to Jewish sources for the proper explanation of Daniel 9:24-27. The word Messiah is mistranslated, not a noun, but an adjective, meaning “anointed.” Jewish apologist maintain it applies to anointing the inner chamber of the Holy Temple, the Holy of Holies.”
To which Jewish sources should we go for a “proper explanation”? The ones chosen by you of course. The line of reasoning you espouse was taken by the leading Rabbis of the so-called “Jerusalem Talmud” ca 230 AD. This was their attempt to put a stop to all of the nonsense regarding predictions of the fulfillment of the “anointed” as a holy person, which led to a series of failed disastrous insurrections that were brutally suppressed by the Romans. So instead they applied the “anointed” to a holy place.
(continued)
To seal the “new deal” regarding Daniel 9, these Rabbis pronounced a curse on anyone who would persist in applying the “anointed” to a person. Why? You and I both know that nobody bothers to ban a practice unless the practice is prevalent. So we can safely conclude that in the first two centuries AD there were plenty of observant Jews debating the meaning and application of Daniel 9.
Because many Rabbis had concluded that the Messiah had to appear before the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD as foretold in Daniel 9. For an example of this prior Rabbinical debate you can look at Sanhedrin 97.
The modern Orthodox Jewish interpretation is that the only thing standing in the way of the coming Messiah is total and complete repentance of sins by observant Jews. Sort of like the Orthodox “final generation perfection” Adventists? When the dating predictions fail, WE are to blame. The best way to absolve that blame is for us to try harder to please God. This mode of reasoning is “baptized paganism” – serving God to gain Divine favor and/or avert Divine wrath.
I hate to tell you, my good man, but your wanderings since your “escape” from your ancestral “echo chamber” seem to have entered a different “echo chamber” of more ancient vintage 8-).
(continued)
“Seventy weeks have been determined upon thy people, and upon the holy city, for sin to be ended, and to seal up transgressions, and to blot out the iniquities, and to make atonement for iniquities, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal the vision and the prophet, and to anoint the Most Holy.” (cf LXX)
Was the Most Holy a Person, a Place or a Thing? Herein is the conundrum for Rabbinical Judaism. By Daniel’s own admission in his prayer, First Temple Judaism failed when the First Temple was destroyed by the Chaldeans. Likewise Second Temple Judaism failed when the Second Temple was destroyed by the Romans. I think we can all agree that the Second Temple did not put an end to sin and inaugurate everlasting righteousness, any more than did the First Temple. For me the hope that a Third Temple might succeed where both of its predecessors failed is simply not credible.
I find the explanation that the Most Holy refers to a Person, namely Jesus Christ the God-man, to be far more credible that the Rabbinical “damage control” potion you apparently have swallowed. Are you possibly asking us to drink from a source that you yourself have been unwilling or unable to swallow?
There you go again toast,
Pretending you know something. You write: Paul, the singular, most prolific NT writer, never mentions it. That’s because it hadn’t been determined…. Maybe Paul does reference it when he uses γενόμενος for ‘born’ of a woman in Gal. 4:4 instead of the more the more common γεννητός. γενόμενος is translated ‘to become’ or ‘to come to be’. The appropriate answer is; “we don’t know”. But in so many things Bugs, you think you do know. You and Serge ‘know’ what the scripture doesn’t say and you know why the scripture doesn’t say it. Serge ‘knows’ who didn’t write the book of Hebrews.
According to the texts, Jesus of Nazareth read the Jewish scriptures as a sacred history. He didn’t question them. He believed them. Jesus Christ’s belief in the texts is completely in line with how the Jews had come to view the authority of Torah. That sort of Scriptural authority remains intact in Torah study today. The Reformation was largely about reestablishing Scripture as the final authority & rule of faith. The Pilgrims viewed Scriptural authority in pretty much the exact same way too. So did the founders of the Adventist church.
It seems to me that when you and Serge get done, the only thing you know for sure is what you don’t believe. I know I don’t know anything, but I do think about: Whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed unto Him against that day…
William, knowing what to leave out of one’s belief system is as significant as knowing what is worth keeping in. Reformers through the ages have based their missions on this principle.
Even Jesus exhibits this, contrary to your view that ” Jesus Christ’s belief in the texts is completely in line with how the Jews had come to view the authority of Torah.” How could he believe ‘completely in line’ with Jewish thinking, and yet say to them, “Moses said …….. but I say…….. !’ I wonder if you have such an ingrained preference for all things OT that even simple logic takes second place to it? Its ok, your SDA heritage will have done this to you.
And then there are ‘scriptures’ to which Jesus referred, and that he considered valuable for our understanding, that are not even included in the limited, man-made compendium people call the Bible. It is not a perfect collection. Man-made things never are. Which is why God has not left us alone, to rely on our imperfect intellects and imperfect books.
He has given us His Spirit. Rom 8. 16, 23, 26 …. ‘The Spirit bears witness with our spirit,….. in sighs, too deep for words.’ Notice that? sighs, too deep for words. Those who think they have to rely on the written words of the ancients, however they choose to interpret them, clearly have lost contact with His Spirit. The founders of Adventism made a whole host of misinterpretations of the words of the Bible. See the 28 FBs, eg.
Serge,
Well said and on-point. Growing-up SDA and earning a B.A. in Theology drilled into me the traditional view of things that I’ve learned in years since is not so “hard” as some people think. My greatest area of growth has been regarding the Holy Spirit. Just yesterday, I was reading in Matthew, chapter 12, where Jesus was accused of casting-out an evil spirit by the power of Beelzebub and part of his response is to twice say that anyone who brings railing accusation (blasphemy) against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven (vs. 31 and 32). Yet many Adventists put great effort into creating reasons for avoiding having anything to do with the Holy Spirit. The excuse I hear most often is that they don’t want to be deceived, but God has promised that the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth. So, does their doubt not speak volumes about the pitiful state of their faith in God? I think that excuse makes as much sense as someone saying the won’t go to church because they’re afraid of finding hypocrites there. Then there are those who are afraid of becoming like Pentecostals. Or those who think all they’re supposed to do is preach doctrinal sermons. All of them are afraid of the Holy Spirit, so they might as well be waving a flag that says, “I’m too afraid of God to believe the truth He wants to teach me!” I choose to believe Him and follow, even when that takes me outside the conceptual lines that I learned in my youth.
Again, William N, we agree. One of those ‘conceptual lines’ of your youth is called ‘spiritualism.’ SDAs are so afraid of it that they, via James and Ellen, have stated that spiritualism is impossible, it doesn’t exist. Anything that exists is made of matter. James Mcilwain has documented James’ debates in the R&H in his book, EGW a Phenomenon of Religious Materialism. Its an absurd concept, but they thought it their best argument against the parlour game spooks of the Fox Sisters. They denied one false idea using another. I think this is the origin of SDA fear of all things Spiritual.
Consistent with this is their over-reliance on the need for intellectual assent to their doctrinal peculiarities as the basis for salvation.
Conveniently they forget that salvation IS the new birth in the Spirit. ‘The kingdom of heaven is not meat and drink, (or ‘doctrine’) but love and peace and joy in the Holy SPirit.’ Yes, Paul did say that, and a lot more besides, on the spiritual/immaterial nature of our true self, and its renewal. When we deny that, there is nothing God can do with or for us. ergo, it is unforgivable. SDAs do not realise their peril.
Keep reminding us where it is truly ‘at’, William.
Serge, How can you quote me verbatim and then proceed to argue I said something else?
I wrote, “Jesus Christ’s belief in the texts is completely in line with how the Jews had come to view the authority of Torah.”
The doctors of the law wondered at and were amazed at Jesus’ knowledge and wisdom when He was in His twelfth year. (of Torah is implied) Jesus appealed to the authority of scripture as we have recently discussed, when He disputed with the Sadducees and the Pharisees, when he taught his disciples, when He prophesied.
When He says, “ye do err, not knowing the scriptures”. It is an appeal to the authority of scripture
The appropriate answer is; “we don’t know”. Γενόμενος. I learned Biblical Greek from both Graham and Mervyn Maxell well enough to know meanings can vary (probably not this one, however). But, I can live with that speculation. Can you live with “we don’t know what Jesus (God) really said?” It leaves you with a problem with “I believe it [what he said].”
Serge will take care of himself. As for me, I long ago gave up the pretense of “acting as if,” the favorite ploy of devout Christians. What that means, you “act as if” your affirmations are true even in the face of contrary evidence, or in the limitations or absence of your knowledge. (No, Paul probably didn’t write the book of Hebrews https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Epistle_to_the_Hebrews).
I don’t expect you to accept scholarly views when they threaten your religious comfort zone.
But your dismissal of me as burnt toast is equivalent to me, Br’er Rabbit, being tossed by Br’er Fox into the briar patch! I like it!
Love,
Toast
Bugs/Larry Boshell, I clicked on your name and arrived at your photos on smugmug. Marvelous. Would you consider letting me use any of them for graphics for the AT website?
Yes, you have my permission. I request credit be given, if possible. If not, it is still OK. If you need different sizing or format, please contact me.
Thank you! Gladly give credit. I love great scenic and nature photography.
Bugs, The text says what it says. I wrote nothing about ‘burnt’ toast. You are reading your own reality into what I wrote. That’s bound to happen sometimes when you apply the historical/critical method. Who knows what happened? You’d swear ‘burnt’ was there when you read it the first time. I’ll quit carping about it, okay?
I’m not acting. I am believing: The Scriptures are a true account of things said and done. I am treating Scripture as a sacred history. If I treat Scripture as a secular history and I start out with a premise that nothing can believed until it is proven – – and because I can’t prove anything in the scriptures — I end up believing in my own senses. Our senses are fallible. Don’t you know? Our senses may be nothing more than the by-product of random chance. I don’t think you are of equal value to a piece of toast – but you will admit – that is an opinion. I have my reasons, my beliefs.
I believe the stories in the bible. Those tales tell me of your place and my place in the world. What we ought to do and what we ought nought to do. Who made the world and who saved it. If I don’t believe them they can’t speak to me.
Kind of like my mom and dad. They told me stuff and I believed them. As far as know, they told me truth. They never tried to deceive me; Never Ever. I trusted them. I trust the Scripture. I don’t start by doubting everything.
William, I thoroughly enjoy the give and take, the jousting, we engage in. I take your comment with a sense of humor and added “toast” as my joking contribution to what I perceive as yours. I’ve never been offended, whatever the jibe, on this forum. I am usually surprised my comments don’t bring more sharp rebuttals. So I’m tormented with the question, “am I being ignored because my arguments are so powerful, or just ignored as being irrelevant?” Probably the latter, I lament. Today, out of the brier patch to the Fields of Ambrosia, for a recovery stint!
Hmmm?? No one. No one?? NOPE, NO, NO, NO, no one, Hmmm, hmmm?? If true, then no one “truly” knows….. Then we are all speculating about what “we don’t know”. Verily, verily, i say unto you…….WE DONT KNOW,,,,,,, ha ha ha ha ha,,,,,,,, ahaaaaaaa, what do we know for sure???? For
sure, we don’t know what we don’t know……..HA HA AHA AHHHHHHH CHOKE, CHOKE. CHOKE,
GER RU BA BA BAL, UGHHHHHH. (i don’t know) why do we “think” we know???????? …………..
i’m ok…….you’re ok…………. i think????????
Earl! Is your lid flipped? I’m very concerned about you. But then I don’t know what I don’t know!
Perhaps I misunderstand Mr. Abbott. He said he believed everything that his parents told him and they never told him anything that was not true. By that statement, does Mr. Abbot mean to say that his parents never told him abut Santa Claus and that he lives at the North Pole, and that he visits all of the good boys and girls in the world in one night and leases them presents under the tree?. Or about the Easter Bunny, and that the good fairy comes around and gives you money for your baby teeth (when you are asleep, of course) . Hmm.
Ditto!
I cannot speak for William, but my SDA parents were very clear to us from the time we were toddlers, that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy were fables, like Goldilocks and the Three Bears.
A little more research shows that the modern Santa of Americans, is some blend of the European traditions of Saint Nicholas and Sinter Klaas, wrapped in a hearty dose of Clement Clark Moore. Sometimes fables do arise from factual bases. Though the fable tends to become far more powerful than the facts. And in this particular case, the fable is aided, augmented and abetted, by crass commercial capitalism.
Mea Culpa, I repented of what I wrote, even before you dog-piled me. I deserved it.
What I should have wrote. Even what I intended to write was “My parents never lied to me”
Of course they told me things that were not true. But they spoke to me truthfully.
It is fascinating how adverse believers are to myth, metaphor and allegory when applied to support and function of belief, but how automatically all three function without notice or equivocation in daily life.
How does myth metaphor and allegory function in daily life apart from belief?
They don’t. Nor does religious belief survive without them.
I think our daugher, Heidi, was three the first time someone asked her, “Are you ready for Santa Claus?”
We had told Heidi about Saint Nicholas (aka Nikolaos of Myra) the historic 4th-century bishop of Myra in Asia Minor (modern-day Demre, Turkey). His reputation evolved among the faithful (as was common for early Christian saints) and his legendary habit of secret gift-giving gave rise to the traditional model of Santa Claus.
I saw the puzzled look on Heidi’s face as she replied to her questioner, “He’s dead!”
Would to God that modern-day Christians would emulate Saint Nicholas by adopting the habit of secret (or at least anonymous) gift giving instead of the tradition of reciprocal giving that thrives in western civilization today!
IRWIN, Did you “LEASE” the toys to your children, and then perhaps retrieve them when they failed the terms of the lease? hmmm.
Blog Author: “And if you’re a Bible student, don’t toss a method of looking at the Scriptures before you even give it a chance, especially when it might open your eyes to many things you’ll never otherwise learn.”
——–
The statement above argues in favour of the historical-critical method as an eye-opener and learning tool. This line of reasoning sounds quite similar to that of someone else when he said: “For God does know that in the day all of you eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and all of you shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” (Gen 3:5 [UKJV])
Pastor Wilson has good reason to caution against such methods of bible study. By default the users of this method will take you out of Adventism and into the Sunday Churches and Sunday keeping, together with a host of other major doctrinal errors and gradual apostasy. All Adventists who have accepted alternative beliefs and practices subscribe to this method in one way or another. The Adventist “Methods of Bible Study” document does not support the historical-critical method and strongly rejects such methods of study. There is always danger in putting human reason above the scriptures of which even Ellen White cautions against such practice.
I have reason to believe that proponents of WO also subscribe to such questionable methods of study.
Trevor, do you travel in horse drawn buggy? If not, you should. The people with your point of view still do, the Amish.
Trevor,
The historical critical method doesn’t leave you alone once you convert to Sunday church. Out you go. Like Bugs told me (in so many words) Religious faith is destroyed by the historical critical method.
If you need help with either the horse or the buggy, let me know we can fix you up.
So Bugs,
Myth, metaphor and allegory do not function, at all, period, Nada, nothing, without belief.
So modern man must live without myth. Is that really possible? Doesn’t man have to believe in something? I mean he can’t really believe he is toast, can he? Maybe he can. Once the doctrine of equality is fully in bloom. If a man truly believes in equality, I guess he can believe anything.
The actual point is the creation story, Noah, Adam and Eve, Noah, Jonah, Job and a host of others were allegorical and/or mythical events or characters, not real. Do you agree?
Bugs,
You and Karl Marx. The Bible is my binky, my pacifier, my drug. The Word of God is a myth. Everybody was so busy myth-making they never bothered with any stories about what was actually done or said.
I agree with John Adams, “If there is no God we should all take opium” If the bible is not true, then Jesus is a liar. We are without hope.
Wow, William you have jumped off the trestle to your doom and there isn’t a train coming yet! Not once anywhere on this forum or in my life, have I ever said “there is no God.” I haven’t talked about opiate. So spit that pacifier out of your mouth, flush the coke, and breath! Yes, it is a myth that the Bible is the Word of God. No it isn’t a myth that an understanding of God can be found there.
I call your God Superguy because the Bible as the Word of God, your view, is way too small to account for what is. When the books of the Bible were written by authors spread over a long historical period and selected by men from thousands of documents to collate the Bible, God wasn’t whispering in their ear what they should write so William and his buddies in 2016 would know “the word of God.”
The allegorical nature of many of the Bible assertions and stories were known by the writers and convey a view of God way past Superguy. Jesus freely used myth, metaphor and allegories, without fear, because he was in the business of uplifting humans with ideas beyond words.
William, I don’t expect you to adopt my view. I just want to convey to you that accepting the realities of the Bible creation, its stories, allegories, etc., doesn’t diminish God, but elevates an understanding beyond Grumpy Grandpa, or Superguy.
Jesus used devices mention above because he wanted to move understanding of God past Jehovah, the Jewish Superguy.
“Wow, William you have jumped off the trestle to your doom and there isn’t a train coming yet!”
I love it! I am laughing out loud 8-). My good man, you certainly have a knack with your own metaphors and allegories.
I do take a higher view of Scripture than do you. I like Alden Thompson’s metaphor for the origin of Scripture. God was the Publisher though not necessarily the Author. God may not have whispered in the ears of all of the Authors. God did assist the Compilers and Editors to choose the best of the best for preservation and publication. And what God saw fit to preserve and publish, I personally hold in very high regard.
Sometimes myths do have a factual basis. Two examples – Santa Claus and the Trojan War.
In high school I wrote a term paper on the Atlantic Sagas. It was interesting to see how they did have a factual basis, although they also contained details that could not be verified and might arguably be false. Now if we just merge them with Christopher Columbus and Father Brendan and Thor Heyerdahl and Geroge Washington and Saint Patrick, American History will be well-nigh indecipherable in another millennium.
William A., you wrote: “Both Matthew and Luke purport to trace the linage through Joseph.”
Yes, but the fact is Mary would have been a daughter of the lineage of David, otherwise how would Jesus have been born? I know this is a grey area within the Gospel account, but unless one denies Jesus was born and lived in a human body like ours, there can be no other explanation, especially when taking into account God was Jesus’ Father.
Mr Boshell says: “Trevor, do you travel in horse drawn buggy? If not, you should.”
———–
Sir I’d rather travel on a horse drawn buggy into the kingdom of heaven than be on a rocket to hell. Won’t you?
Trevor, when you die your fixation and anxiety about heaven and hell will be relieved along with the cloud of neurotic guilt surrounding it. About 65 billion people have already done it and they rest in peace. So it may be good news for you. If your bundle of religious trauma wrapped around your dream of paradise provides a full life for you now, that is fine with me.
I’m concerned, judging by the views you have expressed, you won’t qualify, be good enough, to enter your God’s version of heaven, even drawn in a carriage. So your choice is to sin bravely now or try harder to somehow please Superguy.
Or he could try to please SuperTramp (Donald Tramp) and Ben Carsinogen.
“I’d rather travel on a horse drawn buggy into the kingdom of heaven than be on a rocket to hell.”
Amen Trevor! This is truly one of your best metaphors that I have seen.
There will be no mules drawing wagons to the heavenly Paradise. More likely, time warped thought transfer will be the transitional vehicle of choice, of the Godhead. Lift up your heads. and be ye lifted up,
for the King of Glory is on His Way . Still a “kool metaphor”, Trevor.
I used to ride rocket ships, but now I travel on a moped.
Moderators: I liked the old AToday site format better. Nowadays you can’t even tell who is replying to whose comment. Please fix the commenting forum so it will indent the responses and indicate who is replying to whom.
Or periodically request that people who post comments mention to whom each specific comment is primarily addressed.