In Dealing with Creationism, Is Official Adventism Going Down the Same Road as Islam?
by Ervin Taylor, May 21, 2015: During the European Middle Ages, Muslim scholars created a “Golden Age” for Islamic intellectual pursuits that included some of the initial steps that several centuries later in the West, would lead to the rise of modern science. In a recent article published in Physics Today, Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy, an Islamic physicist currently teaching at a university in Pakistan, described the nature of the Muslim “Golden Age,” that included the development of an incipient scientific enterprise that arose among Islamic scholars, and then relates the factors responsible for destroying the foundations of that science.
Dr. Hoodbhoy cites as the principal reason for the destruction the “theological tensions between liberal and fundamentalist interpretations of Islam.” As was the case with the politically and economically driven (but theologically justified) “Wars of Religion” in late Medieval Europe, these tensions in Islam became inflamed and often turned bloody. As Dr. Hoodbhoy relates it, with the military and political victory of fundamentalist elements in Islam, “the open-minded pursuits of philosophy, mathematics, and science were increasingly relegated to the margins of Islam.”
Today, Young Earth Creationists (YEC) and Young Life Creationists (YLC) among fundamentalist Christians (which include Adventist fundamentalists) are fond of referring to well-known 18th and 19th century scientific pioneers in the West who were (according to YEC/YLC advocates) “faith-affirming” scientists. These modern apologists sometimes fail to look carefully at what these so-called “Bible-believing” scientists actually believed.
For example, the personally devout 19th Century Christian physicist James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) once wrote that he would be “very sorry if an interpretation [of the Bible] founded on a most conjectural scientific hypothesis were to get fastened to the text in Genesis. The rate of change of scientific hypotheses is naturally much more rapid than that of Biblical interpretations, so that if an interpretation [of the Bible] is founded on such a [scientific] hypothesis, it may help keep the [scientific] hypothesis above ground long after it ought to be buried and forgotten.”
Maxwell was well aware that what often passes for some purported “Biblical-based” belief, is, in fact, simply an interpretation of some biblical text. Whether the interpretation of a text actually conforms to what the writer of the text originally meant to write is often ignored by YEC/YLC apologists. Maxwell’s main worry here was that if some conjectural scientific hypothesis becomes bonded to a given scriptural text, this would damage the progress of science. One would think that Maxwell was talking about the “official” Adventist belief that a recent world-wide flood explains the geological record (which is currently the institutionally-sanctioned Adventist explanation of how one is able to ignore the mass of evidence that both the earth and life are billions of years old).
The ideology about Creationism being currently advanced by the parts of institutional Adventism controlled by the current party in power at the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists is causing Adventism to go down the same road that was traveled by dominant forces in Islam many centuries ago. The current efforts of the fundamentalist forces in Adventism are, in part, directed on changing the wording of Fundamental Belief No. 6 at the upcoming General Conference session. If that change is voted, official Adventism will move further and further down that broad road leading to theological ossification followed by the forces of fundamentalist Islam so many hundreds of years ago. If that occurs, the alienation of educated Adventists from institutional and official Adventism will not only continue, but be accelerated. There may still be time for moderate Adventists to seek some type of accommodation. But they must move quickly.
“There may still be time for moderate Adventists to seek some type of accommodation. But they must move quickly.”
There is no need for this, Dr. Taylor. Every institution will define itself to some level, and each of us must necessarily evaluate if we can agree to the self definition. There must be a point in which we decide if the institution represents us, and if we represent the institution. If the difference is acute enough, then there must be a separation. Our personal identity and individual beliefs transcend any corporate identity. The value of unity is based on agreement, not disagreement. “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” Has the obvious answer, “NO”.
As for creation vs. science, many of us hold the opinion that science is subject to the biblical explanation of creation and not visa versa. This may well cause a separation between locus of authority and thus, split the unity that may have existed previously. So, let it be. If there is no unity on this issue, there is no unity, period.
Historically, Protestantism has always held the bible presents a clear and concise explanation of various aspects of truth throughout its total scope of time. If the SDA church holds the historical concept of many on the issue of how and when and the time of creation being six literal days, with the 7th being the Sabbath, and if it finds continuity through out all scripture, then the revelation of scripture surely transcends any scientific findings.
The SDA church has split, and is continuing to split more and more on various issues, and the basis is how a person understands the bible and its defining authority of itself and what it teaches. The church places all its members “on the bubble” and each member should also place the church “on the bubble” as well.
If the church can censure me, just so, I can censure the church. This is basic Protestantism. There is no “big tent” philosophy in Protestant Christanity. It is more a “small tent” philosophy and a remnant church that is very minimumalist in its self identity. It defines and re-defines bible truth to a fine definition especially when various aspects are challenged and a more definitive explanation is necessary.
God’s purpose for Adventism was very definitive and did not allow for some “big church” theory that many advocate today. And the closer we come to this worlds end, the more definitive we must be to avoid misunderstanding and confusion.
I am not sure what you think should be accomplished, but I think it would not fit what I have presented in this post. But it could well fit the spiritual mentality of more than a few in the SDA church of today.
Wow, Bill, this can’t be good, you are coming around to my point of view! In general, the church is a club with rules. If you don’t like the rules, move on! That’s the ethical thing to do. Or you can start your own, or join one whose rules you like. That’s what I did about forty years ago. However, didn’t start my own (because the model I had in mind didn’t exist, Jesus didn’t start one) and haven’t found one I liked. Eventually decided I wouldn’t belong to any club that would have me for a member! So I am clubless, no not clueless!
Your agenda may make an alternative club difficult. You clearly want science to change its rules to fit your interpretation of the Bible. Let us know when you locate that one! (Awww, you might already be in it if Ervin’s angst is legitimatized In July)! If not, you may just have to start your own. I have some really good names for it if you want my help.
Two can walk together if what they agree on is mutual respect.
From the “History of Western Philosophy” by Bertrand Russell
“Some of the men to whom Copernicus communicated his theory [of heliocentricity, rather than geocentricity] were German Lutherans, but
when Luther came to know of it, he was profoundly shocked. “People give ear,” he said, “to an
upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament,
the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of
all systems is of course the very best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy;
but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.”
Calvin, similarly, demolished Copernicus with the text: “The world also is stablished, that it
cannot be moved” (Ps. XCIII, 1), and exclaimed: “Who will venture to place the authority of
Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit?” Protestant clergy were at least as bigoted as Catholic ecclesiastics;”
Thank you Dr. Taylor! Would you have the reference for Maxwell’s thought there? Thanks
Erv,
I understand where you’re coming from but am not as concerned as you for at least three reasons.
Yes, the church does seem to be following in the same path as ancient Islam. But that brings us to the differences that I think deserve consideration to frame the issue in a different perspective. First, Adventism is a minor religion so any such progression will likely be a “tempest in a teapot” easily overwhelmed by other issues, most likely from outside the church. Second, Islam was the dominant, even exclusive, religion in those areas and much of the Islamic enlightenment was put-down with violence that simply is not possible in the church. But that won’t prevent people of differing opinions from battling each other with words and accusations capable of doing equivalent spiritual damage. Third, God has an amazing capacity for rendering moot the issues about which we become distressed, so I am confident He will overrule if a vote is made to go in a direction about which He does not approve.
In the first place, Ervin, theological Adventism exists in a soundproof chamber without external influence, so whatever action it might take to avoid reality will have no effect on the world (and probably little on its cloistered, argumentative inhabitants). It has already barricaded itself by the exclusive doctrines of the Sabbath and the second advent into its sphere so tightly that it might as well be prison walls so if it were to adopt an extreme view of, let’s say, a flat earth proposition, neither the religious world nor the scientific world would or could know or even, if it did, give it a nanosecond notice.
In the second place, the Muslim Golden age doesn’t’ compare to where we are now in that the questions raised then, for which it was truncated, have been answered in ways that stand the test of scientific challenge. I acknowledge that theory now reigns supreme, but, freely tested and subject to adjustments, eclipses completely notions of the basis of Biblical cosmology.
You know, as well as I that there is a large and growing body of SDA’s educated in science, including geology, biology, and subsets of engineering, who don’t care what the oracles of the church say, write, or pontificate about wishful stuff, faith propositions. They aren’t leaving the church behind for all kinds of reasons adequate for themselves. To them the tenets of the baptismal certificate, the Adventist creed, is ink on paper, (as it is to most members). So what the GGG (Glorious Guardians of Good) does in SA in July by their re-inking will just benefit only the printing presses.
I have no idea the effect if your ultimate fear of the brouhaha in SA in July is realized. Enforcement would lack any police power, it appears, so wouldn’t the result be a little ado about a little?
Anyway, the handful of strident traditionalist (GGG, ) are eventually doomed to lamentations. Yes, I’m “outsider” peering in. So how can I be sure? Adventism, to its credit, has always encouraged education, and that is its Achilles heel, its doorway to reality. It has created an army of skeptics, many of whom have gone to “outside” schools for advanced education.
Over the long term even proprietary education has to finally differentiate, however reluctantly, between myth and facts. From what I read, higher Adventist education has adopted creationism as a myth, an allegory. That slippery slope may slide Adventism into a brave new, bright world!
“You know, as well as I that there is a large and growing body of SDA’s educated in science, including geology, biology, and subsets of engineering, who don’t care what the oracles of the church say, write, or pontificate about wishful stuff, faith propositions.”
The people you describe, Bugs, don’t care what the bible says. So you have created a false dilemma by a situation that does not exist. For the group you describe, it is the church against science. For a bible believing Protestant, it is the church against the bible. And the contrast is light years from the situation you describe.
Bill, you couldn’t be more wrong. Because people disagree with you on how the Bible is to be viewed and applied they don’t care what it says? How do you know or can you say such a thing? That’s the false dilemma and you are promoting it.
It appears the word “educated” is your code word for “someone not like me.” Pollution, them, purity, you.
Ervin, some will say “ouch” at your very applicable comparison between the “Golden Age” of Islam and Adventism, but it is most apt.
A number of years ago when reading “Aristotle’s Children” I learned for the first time the worshipers of Islam’s amazing discoveries in mathematics and their salvaging and translation of the great Greek philosophers which would have been an immeasurable loss to the world.
Adventists are not alone in the return to Fundamentalism but other religious groups are hastening a return to yesterday. But in this backward move, while they may not lose the old cultural members, the young and better educated will simply shrug in embarrassment and walk out the back door.
Recently there was another incident of Clifford Goldstein saying that those who think God used evolution to create don’t belong in the SDA church. My guess is that what will happen at the GC is very much in line with Goldstein’s view. See my article at http://cafesda.blogspot.com/2015/05/goldsteinyou-dont-belong.html
That’s right Ron. It is bible faith vs. science.
Well Bill if you read the article you would see that he uses false information…so the claim of Bible faith is pretty doubtful.
“That’s right Ron. It is bible faith vs. science.”
This nonsense statement is where you end up when rejecting sound exegesis of the text.
Bible faith is not based on ignorance of the facts. And, we note, ignorance of the facts and a determined argument against them seems to characterize both positions.
While having a purely humanistic view of the origin of Scripture, like Bugsy, GUARANTEES a wrong interpretation of Scripture, having a fundamentalist set of equally false presuppositions results in the same thing.
Why “a pox on both your houses” is such a good proverb.
Hello Ron, read your blog piece; very good job. Just one question. You mention that theistic-evolution would be accepted by most Intelligent Design approaches. I would say that is not really true; if it were there would be no need Intelligent Design theory. Common Decent might be accepted by some Intelligent Design Scientists but ID does not see the process of evolution as the means by which God created life forms on earth.
Cliff has been given a prominent bully pulpit by the church as seen in regular articles in the Review indicating he may be the “mouthpiece” by leaders who let him “front” for them. He speaks for the lowest common denominator of the poorly educated, the ignorant, or the faithful members who would never dispute the official stated beiefs.
Elaine,
What a judgment you are making! I know CG, and no one uses him. What an elitist remark–certainly not politically correct from any standpoint!
Elaine, your highly selective liberal-humanistic approach to Scripture is — from the viewpoint of modern Biblical Studies — a sign of being poorly educated and ignorant about this field.
Of course, that doesn’t mean Mr Goldstein isn’t in the same boat with a different set of false fundy presuppositions.
Perhaps ones closer to reality though.
Well intelligent design really only says that there is a design. There are a whole lot of different theories about the how involved. Theistic Evolution says that God is/was involved in the evolution process, the how or when of God’s involvement would not be knowable.
The Discovery Institute says the following: “Does Intelligent Design Conflict with Evolution?
It depends on what one means by the word “evolution.” If one
simply means “change over time,” or even that living things are related by common ancestry (Evolution #1 or Evolution #2), then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and the theory of intelligent design. However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism (Evolution #3), which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that “has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of
a species” (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design directly challenges.”
Forgot to put the source on the Discovery Institute quote.
http://www.discovery.org/f/1453
Ron,
Do you believe that used millions of yeas of pain and suffering to evolve man from ????
Gene
Bill Sorensen writes, “If the difference is acute enough then there must be a separation.”
I’ve read a lot of Bill’s long posts. I’ve formed the opinion that his views are acutely different to many others on this site. Does this mean we can expect him to separate from ATODAY in the near future?
Bill enjoys the freedom to express his sometimes radically different opinions on the ATODAY site but it seems to me that he doesn’t see a place for the same freedom in the SDA church. Is it old fashioned hypocrisy, a blind spot, a disconnect? I’m puzzled.
In my mind the wording of the Fundamentals is irrelevant. If I had to black out the bits I disagreed with it would be unreadable. Should I leave the church? I don’t believe so. My relationship to Christ is all that matters. I’m free to fellowship with all Christians.
Milton, A-today is not the church. A-today has no theological definition and is simply a “clearing house” for anyone and everyone opinion. Nobody “joins” A-today as a church fellowship. So to compare the SDA denomination and what it teaches and allows to be taught has no affinity to the format of A-today.
So why would I “leave” A-today, when it has no basis of definition and they allow anyone to simply state what they believe without demanding accountability to some statement of faith?
Like many things, people compare apples to oranges and then try to draw some parallel in definition. I doubt that you read everything posted on all the threads. I know I don’t. Some things have little or no interest to me. Kind of like reading the news paper. You only read what has some interest to yourself.
A-today is way more open to discussion and dialogue and allows more challenge on all issues than does Spectrum. Spectrum is monitored continually and much is deleted by those who are responsible for the forum. They tend to gather supporters who give each other massive doses of affirmation and very little real dynamic challenge. And for the most part, it is the same-o same-o people who do about 95 per cent of the posting and dialogue.
The SDA Review on-line is more open than Spectrum to dialogue.
The Spectrum blogs have many more regular and infrequent poster than AToday, as well a many more essays each week, IOW a much wider variety than AToday, and usually less verbose.
Their format is much easier to read also. But AToday is serving a useful function to allow individuals to express their ideas and opinions. The Review is far more rigid than in past years as well as borrring.
Bill Sorensen, I don’t think you ever answered my question – are you related to the Dr. Sorensen who lived in Victorville, CA?
My brother Herb, has a PHD in Chemistry. But he never lived in Victorville. He graduated from UC at Davis, Ca. So, no, I am not related to the doctor who lived in Victorville.
I don’t know about Bill Sorensen, but I am a 4th generation SDA who has a very long background in the church, including as the wife of a pastor. I do not believe relatively new members who push their own viewpoint, such as Cliff, should feel they have the right to tell others to leave if they disagree. After all, the Holy Spirit was sent by Jesus to “guide us into all truth.” That means we need to keep growing, listening, and learning, not go backwards.
Amen!
I am also 4th generation SDA on my father’s side. I am the son of a SDA pastor and the father of a SDA pastor. And all of my children are actively participating in the SDA church. Though within my own immediate family we do not agree on every point of theology or how to interpret the Bible or how to interpret scientific evidence, or how to vote or where and how to live, we all love each other and enjoy our times together with minimal quarreling.
I find it ironic that both on the Liberal side and on the Conservative side there are zealots who are all too happy to tell those of us in-between that we should pack-up and leave the SDA church. Though their other personal Fundamental Beliefs are mostly different, on this very important Fundamental Belief they agree.
Isn’t it interesting how the same spirit can animate people with very different opinions, to accomplish the same objective?
Milton Hook,
“In my mind the wording of the Fundamentals is irrelevant. If I had to black out the bits I disagreed with it would be unreadable.”
That is quite a statement. And I agree with you in part.
Tell me, Milton, if a believer in Jesus Christ were to be baptized by an Adventist pastor, during which time one would need to acknowledge the church’s “fundamental beliefs, even if they are not Biblical, would not that confession be denying Jesus Christ, into Whom one is being baptized? I refer to “Fundamental Beliefs” 18 and 24; and the “Official SDA Baptismal Vows” 11 and 13.
My main point is this: How important is our confession and does it not have deep spiritual implications?
Daniel, I was baptised into Jesus Christ. I was accepted into SDA fellowship and they can kick me out whenever they want to. For the present I choose to fellowship and worship with my SDA friends, my Roman Catholic friends, and my Episcopalian friends and any other Christian friends I might make along my spiritual journey. We meet regularly for Bible studies, some of which I lead. I experience a lot of joy discovering genuine Christians in other denominations.
Bill, I take it that you are going to stick around on the ATODAY site, commenting at length on most religious subjects even though you lament the fact that other sites have “the same-o same-o people who do about 95% of the posting and dialogue.” If ATODAY becomes just as tedious will you consider pulling up stakes and ruminating in another paddock?
If you check all the threads, I post on very few and don’t read at lot of them very much. Only to find out the basic theme at the outset. If that bothers you, I suggest you simply skip my comments as I do many others.
I do appreciate A-today because they allow more open “bickering” than other forums. I assume there are still some honest people who are not ready to “buy” anything and everything they are told, either in the church, or, outside it. I abandon the doctrine of “the infalliblity of the SDA church” long ago. Being a part of the Brinsmead awakening, I saw total ignorance by many leaders who could not articulate bible Adventism, even though they were officially appointed by the church to do so.
In the context of the issues, the church published a paper by the “Defense Literature Committee” that was supposed to refute the Brinsmead Awakening challenges. These were supposed to be the “highly enlightened” leaders and were officially appointed by the church to defend the church.
Their errors were so many and outside bible Adventism, I simply abandon the idea that “the church” would ipso facto go through to the end. And this is when I realized the church would never, ever, admit they were wrong about anything. Let me give you just one position the committee took, and you decide if they were really SDA or not.
They said there was no sanctuary in heaven, and according to Paul, the Most Holy Place was “heaven itself.” This is how they interpreted Heb. 9:24. Where Paul says, “Christ has not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true, but into heaven itself…….” Thus, they concluded “heaven itself, was the sanctuary.
How much credibility did I give our church leaders after this creative explanation of the meaning of Paul in Hebrews? Zero, none, nada, zilch……etc. Did they repent for this fiasco? No way. They cover their spiritual behind at every move. Do I think the church will correct their godless move to ordain women a few decades ago? Sure they will, about as much as they admitted their errors in opposition to the Brinsmead awakening 50 years ago.
No, I am not really bitter anymore, even though they run several of my family out of the church by their wicked duplicity. I know God raised up the Advent movement for a purpose. And even if the church refuses to “listen and learn”, God will yet create a community of bible believers who will truly represent His message, “In spirit and in truth.”
Bill, I am very familiar with the paper published by the Defence Literature Committee (1962). It played the man (Brinsmead) and not the ball. It was incapable of answering Brinsmead because Brinsmead was simply teaching a strengthened view of church error, i.e., human perfectionism, a view popularised by the SDA apologist, Milian Andreasen and, later, Robert Pierson, Kenneth Wood, Herbert Douglass and others.
After extensive reading of Reformation theology Brinsmead gave up perfectionism about 1970 and turned to the Pauline gospel. The gospel took the SDA church by storm and shook Andreasenism to the core, creating a division that is still present.
I visited Brinsmead a couple of years ago at his farm and satisfied myself that he still abides by his personal interpretation of the gospel, something that has not reverted to perfectionism. And he now agrees that Hebrews does not speak of a literal sanctuary in heaven.
I gather from what you say, Bill, that you did not move with Brinsmead in his 180 degree turn of mind. Would it be correct to characterise your theology as similar to that of Andreason (about 1930s)?
I know you will plead that yours is a biblical theology. But does it take note of literary genre? Does it acknowledge cultural influences in scripture? Does it use the original languages for exegesis? Does it make use of the year-day theory that has been used to predict the second coming hundreds of times but every time has failed? Andreasen used the year-day theory and often ignored literary genre, the culture of biblical times, and made very little use of the original biblical languages.
My first two questions (re literary genre and culture) has the greater relevance to your response to Ervin Taylor’s article above.
Ever since God ejected Satan from heaven, that great deceiver has been striving to create a substitute for everything God has created. We have Christmas, Yule logs, fir trees, Santa, and commercialism supplanting the birth date of Jesus.
Also we have the Easter bunny and eggs to act as a distraction for the most important event on planet earth, the resurrection of our Lord, Jesus.
And of course the attempted knock out punch by Satan to counter the fact that God created our world, Evolution.
If one merely steps back and looks at the pieces that make up the whole, one has at least a small chance to view the picture.
I find it sad and yet a bit humorous that people can believe God created an entire planet filled with thousands upon thousands of different life forms, but then like someone who can swallow a camel, they choke on a gnat and find it impossible to believe that God has the ability to manipulate the laws of physics which HE created.
I have no problem comprehending the earth actually could be new rather than billions of years old because creating a planet from nothing totally violates scientific laws as man has laid them out.
About 40 miles from my home is the Kettle Moraine area of WI. There is physical evidence of glaciers retreating. Science insists that proves they were in place tens of thousands of years ago. But then scientists turn and warn us that glaciers all over the world are receding so rapidly that many will disappear in the next ten years. DUH! Do they even listen to themselves?
IF A GOD can create a whole planet just by speaking the words, IF HE can part an entire sea, IF HE can raise a dead Jesus from the grave, then He can manipulate the layers of the earth and speed up or slow down any aspect of that earth He so chooses.
Choose ye this day whom ye shall believe. A God who can speak planets into existence or a man who can speak theories to insert in textbooks.
Mike, You say you “have no problem comprehending the earth actually could be new rather than billions of years old….” Given that, how do you explain all the astrological data that indicates the universe is billions of years old?
Gordon, when Adam was created, he was one day old. But biologically, he must have been 20, or 30 or some mature age not revealed. Just so, God could have created the earth a billion years old if that was His intent. The trees, flowers and everything created was created in some mature state, and did not start from seed.
I am not saying this is the answer. I am saying the possibility is there and we can reject scientific findings based on this possibility. If they find a rock a billion years old, well, maybe it is. So what?
Bill, You correctly deduced that my question was about what basis was being used to reject science, Your answer was clear, You will reject science based on the existence of another possibility.
You ask, “So what?” Thus far, science has an extensive history of being right in its conjectures about what is true in the universe. Plus science has a method to fix the conjectures that are wrong. And thus far, the other, (non-science) possibilities have a nearly perfect history of being wrong. The so what is that if you want to believe in what is really true about God’s creation, your best option is to align yourself with the conjectures of science.
Mike! God did not “eject” Satan from heaven. At first Satan went forth on his own to preach his gospel of selfishness and declare God both a liar and a tyrant, assuming powers he did not deserve, and most certainly NOT the creator of the vast universe.
He came back after the fall of man to constantly berate God’s grace toward humanity though he himself was under condemnation. Job points out a classic example of this.
Only after the life/death/resurrection/ascension did the sympathies of the heavenly universe run out. The lockout was the complete free and absolute decision of the unfallen angels that the rebels were no longer welcome in their home.
The Revelation clearly states that only after the male child who is to rule all nations with a rod of iron was caught up to heaven and God’s throne did the angels fight and dispel Satan and his host, who were then confined to the earth. Obviously the unfallen worlds no longer had any willingness to listen further, evil having demonstrated its nature.
First point. But point two is much more important.
Your picture of God is really a picture that makes him morally equal to Satan. What on earth would be God’s purpose in manipulating the evidence to make t he earth appear old? JUST TO CONFUSE MANKIND, DESTROY FAITH, AND UNDERMINE HIS OWN PURPOSE OF MAN’S SALVSATION?
REALLY?
God does not “manipulate” his own laws or any of his creatures, period. Apparently you are unaware of what Genesis 1:1 really says. I know how it reads in English translation, but that is not how the Hebrew reads. And agreement on that point goes back at least to the work of the very conservative Masores who gave us our Masoretic Text.
Is the first phrase a prepositional phrase saying that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, or an adverbial phrase, reading with the Masoretes (and the requirements of ancient Hebrew grammar): “WHEN GOD BEGAN TO CREATE THE SKY AND THE GROUND/EARTH [WE HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT “ERETZ” DOES NOT MEAN PLANET!!!!], THE GROUNDEARTH WAS TOHU WE VOHU.”
One can easily look up both “tohu” and “vohu” and their being placed together here — a “hendiadys” or heaping up to make an intense and precise meaning.
Hence “WHEN GOD BEGAN TO CREATE THE SKY AND THE LAND/EARTH WAS IN UTTER CHAOS.”
“I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightning.”
I am wondering if Dr Wood could tell us when it was that Jesus saw this event?
You may be aware, Engineer Hamstra, that the Lord Jesus probably did not preach in koine Greek. The likelihood is great that he read the Scriptures in Hebrew but spoke in preaching in Aramaic.
The verbal system of both Hebrew and Aramaic are devoid of tenses in the sense that Greek uses them (and English too, not as precisely). In general, a “perfect” speaks of completed action and is often wrongly translated as a past tense in English translations.
In general, an “imperfect” speaks of action not yet completed, and often is mistranslated as a FUTURE TENSE IN ENGLISH.
However, in the short article I will cite here, the author has done an A+++ job of explaining the “PROPHETIC PERFECT” and how actions yet future are regularly described as past in both Hebrew and Aramaic.
AND BEFORE YOU OBJECT, counter-intuitive though it might be, much of the New Testament reflects its Semitic roots in exactly the same way. An event Jesus refers to as past, particularly if it is being said as a future CERTAINTY will be described in a past tense t hat the hearers and readers would readily understand was actually a prediction of a future event.
I urge you to read this short article carefully, as your hidden objection to what I wrote contains (as is so often the case) as series of misunderstandings based on ignorance of the complexities involved.
Not that ignorance of the complexities involved in various passages of Scripture is any rarity in these often amazingly off-base posts. 😉
Yes, the event referred to was yet future as the Revelation clearly states. It makes a point of not disagreeing with Jesus’ prior teaching, but underlining it! Be well.
And just to prove that I am not an absent-minded professor, here is the url of the article to which I referred:
http://www.truthortradition.com/articles/the-prophetic-perfect
Now, Eng Hamstra et al, presuming you actually did read the brief article on Prophetic Perfect, let’s look at Luke 10:18, which in the RSV reads: “And he said to them, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.”
The “he said” is a simple narrative about a statement Jesus made, hence is a simple second aorist, definite past-tense statement.
However, the verb behind “I saw” is an IMPERFECT active/indicative, indicating incompleted action, here translated quite correctly as a past tense in English.
The version you quoted from ineptly tries to carry the incomplete action of the imperfect by the unfelicitous “I was watching” rather than the way the first readers would have understood the verb: as a PROPHETIC PERFECT.
That is, “I saw” is the right way this should be read with the KJV and a host of later translations, but the “I saw” is NOT something that happened in the past from the time Jesus said this, but something that was in his mind absolutely certain.
And of course by the time the READERS read the statement, the absolute certainty of the PROPHECY had become HISTORY.
So Dr Wood has voted against the NASB as a legitimate rendering of the Greek verb tense in this passage. Whether correct or incorrect I cannot say because Koine Greek verb conjugations does not happen to be one of my personal competencies. But I did disclose my source and it was not any “person” that I know but a rather widely published formal Bible translation.
Next time I talk to one of my friends who happens to hold a PhD in NT Greek I shall ask regarding this particular verb and Dr Wood’s exegesis thereof.
So this evening after returning from my travels, I did have time to read the linked paper once. Though I may not claim to have mastered everything therein, I found nothing in one pass where I would disagree.
I did not find therein any exegesis of Luke 10:18, but I did find a general endorsement of Young’s Literal Translation as doing a careful job of rendering Greek tenses.
So since you objected to NASB here I will cite Young:
“and he said to them, ‘\’I was beholding the Adversary, as lightning from the heaven having fallen'”
According to one Greek lexicon:
1) The verb “etheoroun” (was beholding in Young) is Imperfect Indicative Active.
2) The verb “pesonta” (having fallen in Young) is Aorist Participle Active.
I found two verbs – one Imperfect and one Aorist.
Could you elaborate the sound exegesis that would render this passage (in its immediate context) as Prophetic Perfect?
I know this isn’t in line with your discussion in regards to the NT, but what about Isa. 14:12-21?
12 “How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, You who weakened the nations! 13 For you have said in your heart:‘I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;……..”
Jim Hanmtra, I did not say (nor did I imagine)you had consulted any person with whom I might be disagreeing. In fact, I was quite aware that it was the NASB you were quoting, which is why my wording was exactly “The version you quoted from…”
So I’m not sure why the objection.
And you then go on to restate from Young’s exactly what I already said about the two verbs, the aorist of “he said” and the imperfect of “I saw.”
Given that you have completely agreed to what I already said, I’m not sure what the argument is, if any. you DO seem to be disagreeing, and I’m not sure with what.
Again, I simply think rendering the imperfect into English as an imperfect in English doesn’t do justice to the prophetic perfect nature of so many of the Lord’s statements. And those of every prophet. And the apostles, frequently, too, right up to the Revelation.
You DO see that some translations stick with a past tense in English, while others go with an attempt to render the imperfect. And I have simply said I believe THESE are correct and THOSE are wrong in what they imply.
In short, Jesus was not speaking to a past event, but a prophecy of a future event which he had foreseen prophetically.
You write: “1) The verb “etheoroun” (was beholding in Young) is Imperfect Indicative Active.
2) The verb “pesonta” (having fallen in Young) is Aorist Participle Active.
I found two verbs – one Imperfect and one Aorist.
Could you elaborate the sound exegesis that would render this passage (in its immediate context) as Prophetic Perfect?”
Alright, re-read the article. The positioning of an imperfect with a perfect in relation to the same event is extremely common. So much so that what we see in this verse is what we should expect!
So I’m saying Young can translate this verb as as close to literally in English as he wants, but that implies the wrong thing theologically.
Obviously there are scholars on both sides of this, and those with a stronger Old Testament background are more likely to dislike the misuse of a verb that is so strikingly using the prophetic perfect.
Obviously, when we see two distinct ways to go even in modern translations, there is a reason why some want the imperfect verb to be translated in the past tense. I’m not alone, am I! 😉
The only thing your dear friend could say would be he likes the more literal attempt — and I would STILL disagree. And so would many others especially on the basis of Old Testament usage.
Now on to the much more complex situation of Isaiah 14, which also does not reflect an expulsion from heaven, which did not happen until after the ascension of Christ. (While it is not exegesis, Ellen White comments on this extensively and her comments are on point and exegetically sound.)
Daniel, you wrote: “I know this isn’t in line with your discussion in regards to the NT, but what about Isa. 14:12-21?
12 “How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, You who weakened the nations! 13 For you have said in your heart:‘I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;……..”
Alright, but that still speaks to the issue of was Satan expelled from heaven permanently before the life/death/ascension of Christ?
Isaiah 14 has two parts: One is a DIRGE, on the slow meter of a wail for a dead person. The dead person happens to be Sargon II, emperor of Assyria. A person the prophet Isaiah despised as a servant of Satan.
The Assyrians were notoriously cruel, using mass extermination methods, removal of entire peoples, crucifixion, impalement, and many forms of torture. you should think of the current phenomenon of ISIS as closely related to Assyrian practices.
Now the first half of this chapter is VERY important, for it is about this Satan-controlled king who has died. Isaiah has written a dirge to note his death.
That seems strange, since he despised this tool of Satan until you read the words. EVERYTHING in verses 4 to 11 are part of the dirge over the dead emperor. Read all of those verses and be surprised that dirge meter or not, the whole song is a rejoicing that Sargon is dead!!!
“”How the oppressor has ceased, the insolent fury ceased!…
“The whole earth is at rest and quiet; they [earth’s peoples] break forth into singing!…
“maggots are the bed beneath you, and worms are your covering.” And there the prophet leaves Sargon, in the depths of Sheol, the realm of the dead, rotting away!
The prophet of course immediately connects the ruin of Satan’s boy with the eventual ruin of Satan himself, by using a wonderful ancient myth. Myths are stories about gods, but much more. Since the gods were elements of nature personified, these stories told how nature worked, how the various elements of nature interacted.
Do you remember that I said that in the ANE, no one had ever heard of or imagined such a thing as a “planet”? Oh they observed planets all right, but thought they were evil stars. They didn’t cooperate and move in the heavens the way the stars did.
It did not yet occur to anyone that that was because they were NOT stars!
Very early on folks noticed that shortly before done (right about now as I write this) one could observe a certain very bright “star” on the horizon, sitting right down there just above the underworld.
It was natural to wonder how this bright “star” (it wasn’t a star at all, but the planet Venus but that is something we know but they did not) … how that bright star ended up lying on the horizon. Should it not have been way up there with the North Star at the top of the dome of the heavens?
It was the answer to this puzzle that Isaiah chose next! Read on.
John,
I was not disagreeing with your comment regarding Satan being thrown out of heaven as described in Revelation, but pointing out that Isa.14 was another reference to this future event, in which Jesus again refers to in Luke 10. Yes, the war that broke out in Heaven with Michael and his angels and Satan and his angels is after Jesus rose from the dead and ascended to the Father. This is clear by the reference to how Michael and his angels overcame Satan and his angels, by the “Blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony”.
Isaiah, I said, sees in the destruction of Sargon the certainty of the outcome of Satan. But here your Bible reads “Lucifer,” but that isn’t what the Hebrew says. We’ll come back to that in a minute.
I said Isaiah chooses and ancient myth, “The Revolt of the Stars” to explain not only what happened to the evil Assyrian emperor, but what will happen to the angelic king of evil.
In doing this he cites the very wording of the myth, so here goes. The same verse, only as the original puts it!
“How you fell from heaven, Oh Haylal, son of Shachar!
How you cut down to the ground, you who are weakening the nations!”
Several things to point out. First those are the names of pagan gods. “Heylal” is the “morning star” as it is called, that we know is actually the planet Venus, but they didn’t know that.
“Shachar” is the dawn, personified. Thus we can read the verse this way:
“How you fell from heaven, O Morning Star, son of Dawn!”
What is said next is from the same myth, explaining how the bright “morning star” ended up sitting down on the horizon, right above the underworld. (Keep the picture of the three-part cosmos in your mind.)
Note also the verbs are perfect, indicating completed action. That might suggest to you that this is something that happened in the past. EXCEPT THAT YOU JUST LEARNED ABOUT THE “PROPHETIC PERFECT” WHERE A PROPHET USES COMPLETED ACTION TO INDICATE THE CERTAINTY OF WHAT IS BEING PREDICTED.
In that sense your question/comment is exactly like Jim Hamstra’s question/objection. This is not in fact a description of something that has already happened, but is certain to happen!
The next line is significant: “You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God I will set my throne on high; I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far north.”
OK this is from the myth of “The Revolt of the Stars” and is discussed in a wonderful dissertation by scholar R. J. Clifford, “The Cosmic Mountain in the Ancient Near East.”
Note how this brilliant “star” intends to rise to rule the cosmos. He will rise above all the stars of God. He will set his throne at the pinnacle of the cosmos.
He will “sit” as ruler on the Mount of the Assembly (Har Moged, the cosmic Zion, which gave us the term “Armageddon”.)
Go back to the painting. Note that the earthly Zion is exactly aligned to the cosmic mountain which is above the dome of the heavens, just beyond the recesses of the North Star, around which the other stars of the dome rotate.
The “Mount of Assembly” refers in pagan terms to the shrine of El (and “El” is the name in this verse) the father of the seventy high gods who rule the seventy nations of earth, as Genesis 10 says in “The Table of the Nations.”
Thus the myth became a good teaching device saying what happened to evil Sargon is certain to happen to Daystar, son of Dawn. “Daystar” over time became the name “Lucifer”…
The painting, again. “The Cosmos” by Gary Hunt. C. Melek Ministries, 1976.
Note the cosmic mountain above the dome of the heavens.
Glad you agree, just wanted to fully answer your question!
https://scontent-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/293663_222585497793354_7893796_n.jpg?oh=f28d6f2088511b477430173bbabd8acf&oe=55C6E67E
John,
Just another point I would like to raise: The salvation of man is very clear that by the Sacrifice of Jesus we are saved; but we see in Revelation that this same “Blood of the Lamb” is used by Michael and his angels against Satan and his angels. I see the Sacrifice of Jesus, the Son of God, has far greater power than man first imagined: it is Eternal, for He offered Himself to God through the Eternal Spirit. (Heb. 9:13, 14.)
Good Night, John.
John,
Thank you for your explanation. I apologize for misunderstanding your previous comment.
This problem of misunderstanding what others write, and at times even whom they are addressing with their comments, seems to be rather prevalent on this web site 8-).
John,
“The Bible, Daniel, is not a perfect textbook of modern science and was never intended to be.”
I am fully aware of this as I originally stated in “What Is Adventist Eschatology Good for?” March 9, 9:17 pm. However, with that statement I was not denying the historical record of God’s dealings with man; and also, not discarding the reality of the Word coming in the flesh.
Thank you for pointing this out.
John,
Sorry for throwing Isa. 14 into the discourse between you and Jim the way I did, that is, as a “question”; and causing you to go into great detail. I should have made myself clear how I understood it. However, your explanation was very interesting.
EEGADS, I guess spell check is not the least bit discriminating with names. Mlike was a typo I did not notice and spell check just ignored.
I wish to expand my meaning regarding the glaciers. How is that scientists can warn us glaciers might disappear in ten years but not comprehend they may have done the same perhaps 4-5,000 years ago? They are saying it is happening today, but it could not have happened in the past.
When Mount St Helens blew her top, we experienced two years of cooler than average summers. Just one volcano did that. ONE. I’m certain ninety nine percent of scientists will agree that the earth has been in a warming trend for at least a thousand years. But all it took was one volcano to change that trend. Surely anyone who has even the slightest faith in an all powerful God can imagine that He has the right and the ability to manipulate everything on planet earth.
And such “manipulation” may kill thousands is an indication of God’s power? What about his love and noticing even a sparrow that falls? Are humans less worthy?
Every time “God” sent the earthquake or volcanic eruption, is that love or killing of innocents represented?
Elaine: First class question. I’m sure the Uber-orthodox will have a standard answer–such as “just believe the bible.” Now, these individuals think they absolutely know what the bible says on every subject under the sun assuming that the bible has consistent answers. No one can’t have a reasonable dialogue with these people–as they are absolutely and positively sure they have all of the right answers about everything. Strange.
To use an old cliche–that’s like the kettle calling the pot black!
To EM. An illustration and/or specific example of a “kettle calling the pot black” would be very helpful–if you have anything specific in mind.
The final line is this about the bible. God knows how to “force” people to admit they don’t believe the bible or follow it as the authority for determining faith and practice. The classic example is when the Reformation challenged the church, and the church had to finally admit that the bible was subject to the church and not visa versa. In which case, the church was the final authority and a spirit ethic transcended the word of God. That is, the Holy Spirit working through the church community would lead the church to always make the right decision. The only conclusion being, the church is infallible, since the Holy Spirit would not, and could not err.
And this is the final reality of all the bickering about any and all subjects of faith. As a side note, many who have already abandon the bible use the argument that the bible is not clear nor definitive in revealing truth on the matter, and thus spirit enlightenment based on many factors must be considered and used for determining a conclusion.
My point was and is that the bible can and will create a community of believers who not only confess faith in the bible, but actually know what it teaches. And this will truly be a novelty compared to modern confusion many advocate on many issues and various levels.
I have been reading some of your posts, and I still can’t quite figure your belief system. You judge that if someone doesn’t see things in the same light you do, they don’t care about the Bible. This is really disingenuous, and not in keeping with inspiration.
Are you saying you take the Bible literally in all instances? This is not an SDA stance which does not claim verbal inspiration. At least that is what I was taught. It may be that the church leadership has changed that belief.
Perhaps we pick and choose what appeals to us in scripture, and what appeals to us may be a clue to our character. That is my hypothesis, but only God can test it.
It seems to me that EM has advanced a first class hypothesis: “Perhaps we pick and choose what appeals to us in scripture and what appeals to us may be a clue to our character.” May I just suggest the addition of “and personality type.” to the last part of the hypothesis.
In religion there are two kinds of people: those who have all the answers; and those who have only questions. The first group will eagerly answer all the other group’s questions, as these comments clearly show.
Why can’t it be understood or conceivable that the Creation description is true, but not scientifically possible at the same time? Why can’t those of us who believe it to be true, also believe that it is not scientifically possible; and conversely, or vice versa, why can’t those who believe that it is not scientifically possible, simultaneously also believe it to be true?
Perhaps it is because of what truth, or that which is true, essentially means. The Creation narrative tells that God personally created the heavens and Earth. It does not say or imply a time frame; but does say days, implying Earth days.
In Genesis 1:1 it says “In the beginning God created…” but gives no indication as to when the beginning actually was. In Genesis 1:2 it says that “…the earth was without form, and void…” but gives no indication as to how long the earth had been in this state. In Genesis 1:3 it says that “…God said, Let there be light…” but does not indicate what that light actually was.
Similar observations might be made with regard to the entire Genesis narrative of Creation.
Doesn’t acceptance and acknowledgement of what the Bible doesn’t say help facilitate an acceptance or belief concerning what it does say?
Stephen,
I agree with much of what you wrote here.
“Similar observations might be made with regard to the entire Genesis narrative of Creation.”
Well not really. This Genesis narrative moves from the diffuse to the specific in an intentional progression. And you have only treated the first stages.
1) All of the primordial elements are formless and void and undifferentiated. Even time is undifferentiated.
2) In Days 1-3 the four basic elements of fire (or light), water, air and earth are each assigned their proper realms. This occurs in-order from most distant to us to closest to us. And time is demarcated by discrete days which did not previously exist.
3) in Days 4-6 each of these realms is populated with specific objects. Again in order from farthest to nearest, and demarcated by days.
4) Humans are created in the Image of the Creator. Humans are given dominion over the earth (but not over the starry heavens or the sky or the sea), ie over one of the four realms of the elements.
5) The notion of Sacred Time is instituted. God reminds us that the Divine dominion encompasses both space and time.
Now we have the complete (finished) context in which humans are to operate. And it is very specific.
“Doesn’t acceptance and acknowledgement of what the Bible doesn’t say help facilitate an acceptance or belief concerning what it does say?”
YES! And this drives to the heart of the matter.
On the one side are those forcing the Bible answer every question they consider to be important. On the other side are those refusing to allow the Bible to answer any question they consider to be important.
How shall we navigate between the Scylla and the Charybdis of epistemology? We must learn to use the eye of faith to avoid the shoals of skepticism. We must learn to use the eye of facts to avoid the whirlpool of fanaticism.
Happy Sabbath! Spend some quality time today in both of God’s Books.
W
Science and technology have allowed humans to build our Tower of Babel.
First we built boats and submarines to conquer the waters. Then we built balloons and airplanes to conquer the skies. Then we built rockets and satellites and manned spacecraft to conquer the starry heavens. And we have built nuclear bombs and reactors and microscopes and telescopes and radios and fibre optics to unleash and exploit the forces of fire and light.
Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever.”
Still time and chance overtake every person. We have yet to conquer time and death.
Jim, underneath your engineers façade lives the mind of a philosopher. (I was going to use the alternative “preacher,” but that, in the past it was seen by you as an accusation, a dastardly provocation).
You have cleverly summarized in a few paragraphs a version of what lives in the heart of the Genesis creation story. And you have done it in such a way that opens the door of discussion, but because you have employed metaphor there are no details over which to argue.
My tossed bouquet does contain a couple of unthorned roses, however. Your next to the last paragraph edges a bit toward preacherism, the tyrannical “oughts”, don’t you think? And Happy Sabbath? What’s with that? Is that a book? Oh, I get it, you’re still in the metaphor mode. My bad!
I left the “club” as you put it, a long time ago. I was a ministers daughter who just got tired of everyone in the church following my every move and pointing out my mistakes while ignoring what their own children were doing. I chose to still believe, but keeping it simple and real. I am not as verbose as all of you, but it seems you are missing the point of why we are on earth. I just try my best to do good for others, love my family, and when I die, let the chips fall where they may. I learn from all different faiths and feel we all may have the same final goal, we are just on different paths to get there.
kB, the real path we are all on, including the WAO’s (Wildly Argumentative Ones) is the Answer Path. Or call it the Enlightenment Road forced on us by the specter of death. When I exited the church “club” as a minister about four decades ago, I realized there are countless legitimate ways to live one’s life while in pursuit of meaning.
Adventism isn’t the right, or the wrong way. Just one of the ways. As a matter of fact, it fits a very small percentage of the population and is a Johnny-come-lately on the world stage of propositions for the “final” goal you mention. It didn’t fit me even though I was born, educated, married and employed in it.
All religions market hope in response to death. That’s all there is. In the meantime I believe that, what you say “good for others, love my family, and when I die, let the chips fall where they may,” is the simple process of following the teachings of Christ. Of course, this is way too simple for the theologicrats, the WAO’s.
I am also a “PK” growing up in the 30s, Adventism was a series of evangelistic campaigns in tents with sawdust floors! Prophecy was the theme and all attendees were from the “Bible Belt” and confirmed Christians. “Conversion” meant accepting a different day of worship; a major change too great for many.
The questioning of the creation story as to whether it is “true” is the problem for many because “true” means a literal, factual account of EXACTLY how it all was created, no metaphors at all.
Does anyone ask if Shakespeare’s King Lear or Hamlet is the literal account? Or is it true to human nature that we all may have experienced?
The first rule of all discussions should be: “Define your terms” then there can be an engaging and profitable conversation.
My early Adventist days were in the fifties, a few evangelistic tents, some mobile metal buildings, etc. Our small southern Colorado church gained few if any members if my childhood memories are correct. I do clearly remember lots of “altar calls” with “Just As I Am” wailing from the piano accompanying the wavering voices of sparse attendees, with dire warnings of hell by car accident on exit from the meeting for resistors of that “little voice” calling the pre-converts “home.”
Exactly, Elaine. The endless, mindless, circuitous, vacuous, arguments illustrated by posts on this forum is what you get when you treat allegory as facts. Thank goodness Shakespeare, Old Mother Hubbard, and the Three Bears aren’t in the Bible!
Sorry, the WAO’s (Wildly Argumentative Ones, my new label for miss-applicators of allegory) would find “Define your terms” a fertile basis for new, endless post/reply arguments!
The first rule of Bible study should be “Define your presuppositions. State them clearly.”
Having the right presuppositions about Scripture will not guarantee one is interpreting them in an exegetically sound way, as certain “defenders” who are actually proposing heresies on these threads shows so clearly.
However, having the WRONG presuppositons guarantees error in interpreting the Bible.
When we see merely humanistic interpretations of the origin of Scripture, in plain defiance of what the Bible’s self-witness is, we know we can discard all that follows.
GIGO is an absolute law of reality.
Have you defined your presuppositions? I have given mine and you define my position as “poorly educated and ignorant in this field.”
Indicating that you only listen to those who either agree with you or dismiss all those who have differing opinions. There is no “correct” position on the Bible as anyone over 10 could say; each person has his own beliefs and, of course, he is right and all others are wrong. Such attitudes display an air and assumption of superiority which does not reflect a Christian spirit which attracts, but repels.
Could that attitude not be one of the reasons people walk away from Adventism or all religion? Yes.
(There should be a WebEd moderator to inform those who cross the line with personal attacks; they indicate the paucity of a reasoned argument.)
You say, “GIGO is an absolute law of reality.” I reply, full of holes absolutely in the holy realm, JM. Ascertaining the quality of initial input to assure it isn’t the first “G” is a human enterprise based on opinion. Opinion is ultimately “G.”You can argue some opinions are better than others, especially yours which you will maintain is not only better, but absolutely inerrant, demonstrably correct, of course. And you will “prove” that by citing authority that meets your opinion of a necessary standard deemed by your opinion as unimpeachable.
So, I maintain your “law of reality,” applied to faith will always spew nothing but the second “G.” JM, it’s an application of an otherwise sensible law that often works in a world of real things. Better get a different one. Here’s a couple of samples. The Golden Rule. Or God is love. Or do your own that extends pardons and not indictments in the world of hope, the religious one.
“Define your presuppositions. State them clearly.” I say, Religious presuppositions are straw men for the purpose of amassing straw armies. There. My clear statement of religious presuppositions.
“There are nowadays professors of philosophy, but not philosophers. Yet it is admirable to profess because it was once admirable to live. To be a philosopher is not merely to have subtle thoughts, nor even to found a school, but so to love wisdom as to live according to its dictates, a life of simplicity, independence, magnanimity, and trust. It is to solve some of the problems of life, not only theoretically, but practically.”
In this observation Thoreau was absolutely right. Wisdom is not the same as knowledge. Though wisdom cannot be based upon ignorance, knowledge of itself is only an intellectual curiosity. Wisdom is the useful application of knowledge.
Jesus not only taught, He also lived what He taught. Solomon on the other hand was both one of the wisest men who ever lived and also one of the most foolish, because he made personal choices that contradicted his great knowledge.
Those who espouse the teachings of Jesus (or at least some of His more popular teachings) while refusing to live the life the life of Jesus, may be wise in the ways of this world, but not of the world to come.To truly accept the life of Jesus is not even primarily to pursue His example, but more importantly to allow Jesus to live IN us and THROUGH us, to live IN Him as well as FOR Him.
Now this is truly a mystery that Jesus taught. And it was just as unpopular in His own time as in our own time. So many of the crowds that loved His teachings and His miracles, eventually came to hate Him, when they understood that He was there not just here to turn the world around us upside-down, but to turn US upside-down.
Also a PK (pastor’s kid) and also a PP (pastor’s parent).
And also experienced the harsh criticism of some in the church watching my every move, while seemingly oblivious to what their own offspring were doing. Not only parents, but especially in my case, church school teachers and administrators loved to play this sadistic game.
As we used to say in college, “Illegitimi non carborumdum”.
To be fair though they were a minority. My churches and schools were populated by many loving and caring people.
Aha! I know what what should be the new name for this web site!
PK Today
My band of pre-ministerial brothers, no sisters in those days, (avowed dedicated fundamentalists) at PUC (where I was an attendee for one quarter, income from previous summertime “literature evangelism” only went that far) who also were disciples in attendance at Graham Maxwell’s Biblical Greek class adopted “kakos dulos” (don’t know how to impose the Greek letters here) as our label for those outside our purity circle, which actually is a similar curse with much the same intent!
(I have now come to use the term “sophomore” to deride my unsuspecting insulted ones; it has an ironic Greek etymology, applicable certainly to students of certain academic levels, but useful more widely as well, for theologicrats, as an example, but never for myself, of course).
I wasn’t no PK! My non-SDA dad was a carpenter, mother a nurse. And I was treated kindly by wonderful people throughout my sojourn in the church, with exceptions so minor I can’t recall them.
WAO Today, not PK today, Jim. Far more applicable. Oh, that stands for Wildly Argumentative Ones. Of course, wouldn’t include me. Or you, either.
κακοσ δυλοσ
hope that worked
HTML gnosticism on display here – “I have the power”
Thanks, William for the Greek lettering.
To clear any mystery, kakos doulos is a transliteration of the Koine New Testament Greek words, κακοσ δυλοσ, “evil slave” with slurring derivations allowed.
We were just college freshmen functioning as sopho mores, wise fools.
OK. Gnosto, you defiantly Hyper Texted my Language, you Markup power expert! It hurt, but I liked it! (It’s a German thing, my mother’s side).
you all are my victims. I have no idea what I’m doing except I know I’m experimenting. I was really pleased it came out as greek letters instead of HTML commands.
Whatever your HTML skill levels might be, William, they easily are “expert” next to mine. So you have earned my humor intended Dandelion bouquet!
Being born a PK seems to be the perfect inoculation against Adventism and most religions.
While never feeling hounded by those who pointed at the “bad preacher’s kids” I felt loved and protected by all that I can remember.
But it was the church’s obsession with all sorts of innocent pastimes or dress that I most recall. Never remember hearing the Gospel preached or explained; it was well hidden behind the myriad beasts and fear of probation’s close.
It takes time to shed all such trivia and try to find the essence, hidden deep somewhere behind all the brush. The Golden Rule a a way of life cannot be improved and is so simple, even a child can learn to live by that simple maxim. All the rest of the 28 FBs really are only man’s ideas; not better, no worse, than each of ours.
This above all: “To thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day. Thou canst not then be false to any nan. (HAMLET, 1st Act).
Jim is indeed a true human philosopher, and you Larry, a true Shaman of Poetry and flowing prose. Also a magical purveyor of humour and tragedy, as a mischievous court jester. i love it. One added thought, however, i believe perhaps most aged Christians are content with “let the chips fall, as they may”, having lived this life with LOVE.
JM,
“as certain “defenders” who are actually proposing heresies on these threads shows so clearly.”
What I am about to request from you is not intended to condemn or expose any hypocrisy on your behalf. So do not take this as a trick question, because I truly would like to know, for my personal reasons. If you are wrong in any way, I will take it only as your opinion and I trust others will also.
Without wasting too much of your time, do you recall or know of anything I have wrote on this web site which is contrary to Scripture, and if so, what? I would like to examine it through Scripture and correct my presuppositions.
JM is right the problem really is presuppositions. That is why in in my blog article linked above I noted Goldstein was misusing the term Neo-Darwinian synthesis. He attempts to begin with a wrong presupposition to arrive at his conclusion. The presuppositions will determine all your conclusions and applications. Many people don’t bother to understand their own presuppositions and most people assign to someone that disagrees with them presuppositions that they might not even have. And so far we are not even dealing with whether someone has the correct presuppositions or not. Because things like how we see and understand the Bible takes far more complex presuppositions then does what is the meaning of new-Darwinian synthesis! One can always assume that their chosen presuppositions are true because they believe that God somehow gave them those presuppositions, but that is highly doubtful and really nothing more then a gratuitous assertion. And logical fallacies are no way to begin a presupposition.
So in the end it might really only come down to how you treat each other. That is what Christianity may really be what it is all about. The question is does that idea scare you or give you hope…depends on your presuppositions I suppose.
I will read through your particular comments with care, starting with this thread, and give you any critique that might be helpful, theologically and spiritually.
Give me a day or two to accomplish that.
Gordon,
“Thus far, science has an extensive history of being right in its conjectures about what is true in the universe.”
“The so what is that if you want to believe in what is really true about God’s creation, your best option is to align yourself with the conjectures of science.”
I find both these statements expressing some truth to a degree. Science, when presenting their findings without bias, can be beneficial in understanding the physical world. But science is not always right. Take for instance the “conjecture” that the center/core of the earth is molten magma. How do I align this theory with Scripture when Scripture declares the earth floating on the water, as would an iceberg? (Gen. 1:9, 10; Ps. 24:1, 2; 136:6; 2 Pet. 3:5, 6.) There are many other scientific conjectures which may be wrong, and which need aligning with Scripture. The earth floating on the water also explains how, when the earth was completely saturated by 40 days and 40 nights of severe torrential rain, during the great flood, caused it to sink below the water.
And the Creation period: I see that the first day was when God made the water and all matter/atoms, which were all within the volume of water, and then proceeded to separate the water and matter to form the earth, planets and stars, etc. Gen. 1:1-10. And yet many deny the “young earth” principle only to accuse God of not telling the truth, when He declared that the “Heavens and the earth” were made in six 24 hour days.
Call me a nut-case, but that’s how I see it.
There is very good evidence that the crust of the earth is floating on a highly viscous mantle of molten rock. And that convection currents in said mantle are the primary source of the motion of various segments of that floating crust. And that inside said mantle is a liquid outer core of molten metal, primarily iron. And that inside said outer core is a solid metallic inner core consisting primarily of iron.
Previously on other Atoday web pages there has been extensive discussion of the empirical evidence supporting these conclusions.
And this is not un-Biblical. Having flown upwards of a million miles, and clear around the world, I can tell you that from on-high the land does appear to be floating upon the water.
In the four-elements cosmology of the Bible era, the passage you quote may be valid. Nevertheless simple experiments readily performed even in those times, show that earth and rocks and axe-heads do not float on water. So I think the writer of that passage would have known that it was a poetic depiction and not physical reality.
It is not fair to Bible authors to try to force them to answer questions about physical phenomena which they could not observe without benefit of the telescope or the microscope or seismic imaging or other tolls that have extended the reach of human observations of physical phenomena.
Iron floats when magnetic force governs.
Iron floats when God performs a miracle (however that happens). The strength of the magnetic field required for an axe head to float is far greater than naturally occurs at the surface of the earth.
And the crust of the earth consists largely of lighter rocks bearing silicates etc, which are non-magnetic. If the crust of the earth was highly ferro-magnetic, then the crustal mass would gradually migrate towards the earth’s magnetic poles. There is no evidence that this is happening.
I do believe that God is the author and the master of natural laws. Though God can and does perform miracles in the material realm, that may not accord with our understanding of natural laws, if such miracles were the norm rather than the exception then they would not be miraculous and natural laws would not be natural laws.
Hope floats, too, when a certain magnetic force governs :——–)! Those miscreants, Adam and Eve, apparently get credit for generation of that eternal human version of St. Elmo’s fire!
No, the folks in the Ancient Near East were very consistent, from one group to another, that the earth floated on the primeval sea, the “sweet” water. They knew this empirically because everywhere and anywhere you dug down, you came to the water under the earth.
Remember to rid your mind of these discussions about a “PLANET,” since the idea was still many centuries off from the origin of the creation stories. (There is only ONE “creation story,” the other is not such at all, but the opening chapter of “The History of the Fall.”)
To get a better idea of what the Old Testament is talking about, let me add that the primeval waters on which the earth floated were inhabited by the great chaos monster, “rahab,” and Mot, the god of Death.
In the ancient cosmos, shaped like an egg, the upper half was the realm of life and light, the lower half the realm of darkness and death. In due time (SINCE ALL T IME WAS CYCLIC) the chaos monster would again rise out of the waters and bring the era of chaos and death.
This ancient myth is alluded to when the seven-headed imperial beast rises from the waters before John’s eyes. It is composed of lion-bear-leopard and fuses to the dragon that comes down from heaven. In other words, it is made up of all the imperial beasts of Daniel 7.
Hence, instead of mis-naming it “the leopard beast” as the late historicists did, it should be called “the composite Imperial Beast” and we find in Rev 17 that instead of FOUR imperial periods, as in Daniel, the Christians of Roman Asia are now told there will be SEVEN such periods before the end comes.
Lastly, Isaiah 27:1 assures us that on the Day of the Lord the great dragon Leviathan will be slain by Yahweh’s great and strong sword. (Another element of the earth floating on the primeval sea.)
Here is a depiction of the cosmos of the Ancient Near East by a former student Gary Hunt. It is copyrighted by Melek Ministries and not for reproduction, but I think seeing it will help one to understand why imposing “PLANET EARTH” on the First Creation Story (or the second either, though it is only about the Garden in the eden) is completely bogus:
https://scontent-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/293663_222585497793354_7893796_n.jpg?oh=f28d6f2088511b477430173bbabd8acf&oe=55C6E67E
And, Gordon, you missed my favorite reference to the tripartite cosmos in the Old Testament. It is in t he law of laws, the Decalogue, where we are warned not to make an image of anything that is in the heavens above, or that is in the earth beneath (take those prepositions seriously and look again at the painting of the cosmos) and finally not to make an image of anything that is in the waters under the earth.
Both the Israelite (Deuteronomic) and Judahite (Levitical) wording agree on this point.
John,
The tripartite cosmos (i.e., heaven above, earth in the middle, hell below) might have seemed true to Old Testament authors but today it is an anachronism. So you are right, I did miss this reference.
Yes, Gordon, of course it is an anachronism. However, the whole point of EXEGESIS is to understand what the Scripture author and original intended audience were talking about.
Viewed correctly, the Frist Creation Story (Gen 1:1-2:3) does not speak about a PLANET, and the whole modern argument is about evidence in the PLANET, a concept utterly unknown in the ANE.
The second overwhelmingly important point is that the opening words of Genesis 1:1 read in Hebrew — exactly — “When Elohim began to create the sky and the ground/earth [REMEMBERING NOT TO LET THE WORD “EARTH” TRIGGER THE FALSE NOTION “PLANET EARTH”], the ground/earth was tohu we vohu.”
That latter hendiadys can be easily understood by looking up the places they occur in Hebrew and parallel languages: “When Elohim began to create the sky and the ground/eretz, the eretz was in utter chaos.”
The pre-existing eretz is assumed, but there is no hint that Elohim did not also make that at some prior point. The seven days of creation call into existence the Race of Adam (mankind) and associated animals.
Jim, you know very well that I am interested in the EXEGETICAL meaning of the Creation story. God would never impose modern scientific reality on the ANE, otherwise the whole message of salvation would have gotten lost in a useless — and completely unprovable argument.
Besides, we have to remember that the earth floating on the primeval waters, as described explicitly in all references from the ANE, was their “science” and something they believed could be “proven” empirically.
Ancient man had no less logic or curiosity about the physical world than modern man. What they lacked, as yet, was sufficient instrumentation and theory to further conceptualize what was really happening.
By the fifth/fourth centuries BC that was beginning to happen. By then the OT period, per se, was over.
Why would anyone suggest we try to fit the PLANET into the tripartite concept? That is absurd. That is what Daniel seems to be doing. The Bible, Daniel, is not a perfect textbook of modern science and was never intended to be.
Again the simple rule is THE BIBLE WAS WRITTEN FOR US, BUT NOT TO US. What people generally in the ANE believed was that earth was a pancake (or, in reference to the “four corners of the earth, pehaps a waffle).
There is no fitting that into modern reality. And no, there is no Leviathan in the primeval sea under the earth. And the monster that came up in Revelation 11 was exactly a late reflex of that well-known mythic imnage.
Do we then believe that there will literally be a great red dragon descending from the heavens shortly? Or that the news will soon blare the announcement that a seven-headed lion-bear-leopard had arison from the deep and coalesced with the dragon to become one horrible beast?
Will a two-horned beast like a lamb arise on the North American continent and begin speaking like the dragon?
OR ARE THESE SYMBOLS? Now, literal things can also be symbols, of course. Water is a symbol and also a literal thing. But when it is functioning as a symbol we have to first see its meaning as a symbol.
The roaring sea of the great storms of autumn was an apt symbol for the play and counterplay of human politics out of which the various “Babylon” empires were rising. The Christians of Roman Asia understood this.
The surprising news for them was that despite what Daniel had said, they were not in the final “Babylonian” empire, Rome. The four had now been turned into SEVEN imperial periods, as Revelation 17 says clearly.
Any discussion PRO OR CON about land riding on water is wildly off base. And should be scrapped and the concept of the tripartite universe used to understand The First Creation story, the (two!) Noah-flood stories and so forth.
Techtonic plates floating on a liquid has no relationship to the concepts of the ANE.
So this (earth floating on water) may not have been merely a figure of speech but some or many or most people in that time and place believed this to be factual. I have no problem believing that proposition.
But today should someone believe that to be true, because one or more Bible authors and/or compilers and/or editors described it that way? Or should we believe that the crust of the earth floats on a mantle, etc, as I outlined above?
Jim,
“Or should we believe that the crust of the earth floats on a mantle, etc, as I outlined above?”
I don’t have a problem with whether or not the crust of the earth floats on a mantle of molten rock, as you described in your first paragraph, first comment. But when people try to explain something they have not proven, that is, the depth, or thickness of this mantle of molten rock, I find this speculative. Man(science) has not proven that the “mantle”, or even something below the mantle, is not floating on water, as described in the Scriptures.
My reply is actually just above, since I pressed the wrong “Reply” button.
I still think you missed the intent of my original comment here about cosmology.
OF COURSE ancient cosmologies that pre-dated the invention of the telescope, microscope, et al, could not accurately describe the physical earth and skies as we know them today. The extent to which these were believed to be physical or metaphysical depictions of reality in their time we can discuss. Arguably before Democritus nobody made the philosophical distinction between physical and metaphysical anyway.
What I was objecting to was not something that you had written. I was objecting to the attempt by another commenter to claim that the land surface of the earth that we inhabit today, actually floats upon some subterranean sea of water because “that is what the Bible teaches”.
I think that you and I would be in violent agreement that the Bible is not endorsing any particular ancient paradigm of the physical structure of the Cosmos. Rather it is using the prevailing Cosmological paradigm of those times, to teach us things about God.
So why are you trying to argue with me when I was not trying to argue with you on this question 8-)?
PS – I like the picture depicting the “mountain of God” above the starry heavens. It explains a lot of things that those who insist on overly-literal applications of the Bible seem to ignore.
Thanks John. Good information, succinctly presented. Link is excellent.
“But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places, who call out to the other children and say, ‘We played the pipes for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not mourn.'”
On this very web page we find both those piping their pipes and those singing their dirges. Some things never change.
“Yet wisdom is vindicated by her deeds.”
Thus spake the Greatest Teacher and Wisest Man who ever lived on this earth.
But more than that: Who is wise but he who uses that which he possesses rightly? And who can be right unless he possesses the truth? And who has the truth?
Daniel poses an excellent question. Who is going to have the audacity and giant ego to say “I know the Truth?”
Ervin, me thinks a bit of irony is functioning here on your part. Sarcasm? Humor? Satire? There I go again reading the face of a contributor when I can’t see it. Daniel, pardon my excursion into no-mans-land of wild suspicion and speculation. I concur with Ervin. It is a very good question. I’m pretty sure after I post this I will wish I hadn’t!
A professing Christian who says he does not have the Truth is a liar and deceiver!
Mrs. Nelson’s usual remarks about those whom she refers to as ‘poorly educated’ provides strong evidence that she has never had a proper understanding of Adventism and how we believe what we believe.
Her unsubstantiated claim that the “poorly educated” have Cliff Goldstein to speak for them can also be applied to her in terms of how Mrs. Nelson accepts, believes and supports anything and everything Dr. Taylor says on these boards. Mrs. Nelson has always never shied away from making mention how well educated she is. If therefore even well educated people like Mrs. Nelson, for example, can be so accepting, and fall prey to the groupthink, indoctrination and beliefs of others based on mere assumptions then perhaps the reasoning behind belief isn’t just limited to academics.
I well recall, Trevor, that Erv once said in a post that he agrees with either 90% or 100% of what Nelson writes. I never read what she writes and seldom what Erv writes.
If I should give my reasons the moderators might take offense. I do have good reasons, however.
I have seen no benefit to “understanding Adventism and how we believe what we believe.” It is merely another religion crafted by men as are all belief systems. If the Bible is insufficient to understand God, certainly no man made religion can improve on it.
There was no NT written in the first century, and only 10% were literate so everything was taught by speakers.
Only within less than 200 years has literacy been almost 100% in civilized countries while it is still much lower in large parts of the world.
With the ability to read goes understanding and the Bible is not the simple book that many claim. While its principles can be understood by everyone, religions add many requirements which have nothing to do with one’s salvation. The Sermon on the Mount is the greatest morality lesson ever given and all the listeners could understand. Adventists have added a multitude of affirmations that have absolutely nothing to do with that sermon or the qualifications Christ mentioned in Matt. 25.
The “educated” have the advantage of being willing to read the writings of those with whom they disagree. Fear is the stone wall to education.
Dear Brother Ervin, If you are not willing to accept by faith, what the Bible teaches, you can go to CMI (Creation Ministries International) and check out the scientific evidence for a young earth.
Dear Sigi Keller, Dr. Taylor teaches evolution for a living, so he has some major vested interest in defending his beliefs. He is honest in his beliefs however, and quite sincere from what I have gathered. His religious views does provide a good example of those who suggest that reinterpreting the Bible to satisfy the dynamics of scientific hypotheses and philosophical assumptions that heavily encroach on the metaphysical is the way to go. This is the path to ‘progressive’ enlightenment and one which qualifies them as the highly acclaimed omniscient ones. After all they claim to know everything in one way or another, even claiming to know how the world began and how life originated from lower life forms to highly complex beings. They throw in some scientific jargon, an algorithm or two, and hey presto, they have the answers to the mysteries of the universe.
For example, he doesn’t accept what the Bible teaches about a worldwide flood, based on the assumption that what we see today took millions of years to evolve thereby denying a worldwide flood catastrophe of biblical proportions taking place. Of course he will say that CMI is not real science. Dr. Taylor only will accept die-hard atheists at the top of the evolutionary chain of credible scientists. Credibility tapers down from there to both secular and religious liberals who are open minded about scientific beliefs.
To me, honestly speaking, evolution and science in the same sentence is contradictory at its core – like Fundamentalist Islam being compared to Adventism – it’s like chalk and cheese. Adventists may have fundamental beliefs but we cannot honestly be accused of being fundamentalists especially in terms of the negative connotations associated with it.
Western Science, from wherever it may have come from isn’t being destroyed by Adventism or Christianity for that matter. On the contrary: it is the philosophical assumptions of the metaphysical non-empirical beliefs held by a large proportion of modern scientists who vehemently propagate and religiously guard their beliefs and fraternity, often keeping out unbelievers and persecuting them at tertiary institutions and banishing them from the scientific community and discrediting them for not believing in the evolution theory or for not holding true to Darwinist fundamental beliefs. Not only has true scientific progress being tainted by certain philosophical theories; it has also led many to lose their faith in God and the Bible. In other words it is fundamentalist evolution theory science that will ultimately limit its progress and taint true scientific knowledge especially with the current trend of hostility towards what is considered religion. The Darwinist science community of believers have therefore acted with the extreme vengeance of jihadists against religion and God. They will deny this of course.
It always amazes me the convenience with which ulter-conservatives (I’m going to use the term the “alarmed” to follow because that is the impression they often radiate) eagerly consume the good life that developed knowledge drops on their existence produced by modern science and presented to them via computers, email and forums, etc. They appear to relish every other advancements of current civilization in their homes and travels. And they seem to take advantage of all the health care benefits “educated” ” scientists” have developed.
But somehow the same propagators of all those benefits, whose dedicated lives, honest work, reliable research, constant evaluation and study, those who produced all these fine things become the evil ones in the eyes of the alarmed. All is fine until with these “educated” “scientists” and their applied works, until their efforts, expressed in words, transgresses the “Biblical” version of the alarmed ones belief. There is a blatant hypocrisy here. It is the dishonesty that tries to make good guys bad on a whim of opinion, that the world of science must cater to the world of belief to maintain an indefensible view of the Bible.
Religious beliefs are fine, I have mine. Metaphysics, science fictions are fine. They have their place. Alarmed ones beliefs are fine too, in their private arena. But to openly criticize the “educated” and “science” from those pedestals of belief is to toss imaginary stones at real productive, windmills (to mix a metaphor). And for what purpose?
Living life fully, the pursuit of happiness (a recent addition to human expectations), is served best by acknowledging that constructs in the brain, faith, belief, die permanently, as best as we can tell, with death, just as they do temporarily with night time sleep. So bile accomplishes nothing. Hope is the internal code that drives our lives, can unite us, but is opinion based, doomed in our end. I know, the alarmed ones believe there is a real reward after real death to be received by them for tenacity of criticism of all the vile educated and scientific manipulators who hate the Bible. Well, as far as I’m concerned, a God and his heaven that is the reward for such tenacious (apparent) bitterness is not a place I wish to spend eternity!
It is unworthy to castigate honest people who whose minds harbor thought processes and conclusions “unacceptable” to a coterie of angry self-righteous people when the end result, death, is the same. And to assign undeserved malicious motives on the “reintepreters” is a symptom of a siege mentality, or worse, collective paranoia.
The metaphor of the Knocker at the door who wants to sit down for a visit and maybe even a meal with me, you Trevor, Ervin, Sigi, Daniel, Eileen, and all, says nor implies anything about proper thinking. Spending serious time in that metaphor is very attractive. We are found. He is patient. Good news! He likes us all! And we enjoy each other in that…
Posted one of your old sermons perhaps? Let’s not do an overkill on the benefits of science sir and sound like an alarmist.
It seems from my viewpoint that church officials have wedged themselves between a rock and a hard place in addressing our denominational challenge with materialist philosophy. Our leaders’ objective is to stop the encroachment of evolutionism in our schools.
Many of our science teachers appear to be theistic evolutionists. This is a challenge for young minds to grasp how the claims of the Gospel and the Lordship of Christ as Creator and Saviour can been balanced with the ideas of materialism, for evolution is at its root a “mindless” process.
Even the advocates of theistic evolution themselves have not figured this out and many don’t seem to feel a need to! It is extremely sad that at the very time in history when science itself is beginning to dismantle the house of Darwin as we are trying to get in.
It will take time, but dismantled it will be, because science is self-correcting. The old guard will give way to new minds and better understandings. As Max Planck put it, “Physics progresses one funeral at a time.”
The thing is going to tumble down all around the occupants who set up shop in there.
To prevent this disaster, church officials want to weed out all those who do not believe in a 6000 – 10000 year period since creation. This is comparable to using a nuclear device to rid your house of unwanted pests; It will work; You will destroy your house as well as the neighborhood around you.
There are many Seventh-day Adventist scientists and scholars who know the evidence for an old earth but who also know the powerful evidence against evolutionism, and they know and believe in the coming revolution in science that the positive evidence for Design is going to catalyze. Do we want to be a part of it?
Already the down fall of Evolution’s “junk DNA” is opening the flood gates of positive evidences of intentional design everywhere in the field of Genetics and biologic information systems. In fact, the field of epigenetics is revealing digital information systems so sophisticated that with environmental feedback they are programmed to re-write their own code to adapt to new circumstances. How cool is that!
If anyone is interested in this just google James Shaprio or find his newest book on kindle– Evolution: A View from the 21st Century which includes stunning descriptions of biochemical complexity and complex cellular regulation pathways that provide compelling positive arguments for biological fine-tuning that indicates intelligent design. For example:
• “One of the great scientific ironies of the last century is the fact that molecular biology, which its pioneers expected to provide a firm chemical and physical basis for understanding life, instead uncovered powerful sensor and communication networks essential to all vital processes , such as metabolism, growth, the cell cycle, cellular differentiation, and multicellular morphogenesis. … [T]he life sciences have converged with other disciplines to focus…
I basically agree with you.
But I think your analogy of Epigenetics as “rewriting the code” is faulty. I suggest a better analogy might be “selecting the operative code from a library of codes”.
thanks Jim, that is better worded more accurate
Even if we don’t consider evolution, the SDA Church is already losing credibility by advocating a “recent” creation. Can it really defend a “recent” creation 6,000-10,000 years ago?
Who’s going to believe in a church whose fundamental belief implies that stars were “created” only a few thousand years ago, one literal day after the plants?
… [T]he life sciences have converged with other disciplines to focus on questions of acquiring, processing, and transmitting information to ensure the correct operation of complex vital systems.” (p. 4)
“Genomes are sophisticated data storage organelles integrated into the cellular and multicellular life cycles of each distinct organism. Thinking about genomes from an informatics perspective, it appears that systems engineering is a better metaphor for the evolutionary process than the conventional view of evolution as a selection-biased random walk through
the limitless space of possible DNA configurations.” (p. 6)
At some point few will continue to buy Dawkin’s “appearance of design,” story, and will see clearly, it is Designed!
yMy appeal is that as we attempt to screen out materialists from teaching in our schools, which we must do, let’s not drive out the brightest scientists and scholars we have to do the job.
The only way to align the Bible with the assumptions of Darwinist evolutionary science regarding its age is to rework the plain teachings of the scriptures by claiming that each creation day took eons. Both the Old and New Testaments, and the Sprit of Prophecy inspired writings of Ellen White do not support this position. Perhaps there are other churches that do and some may find themselves at home there: I know I would if I believed the same. When some people were saying that the Adventist Church has been infiltrated by the enemy, these were brushed off and labelled as fanatics, extremists and fundamentalists – but come to think of it now, it seems that many of them may have been right, considering how things are turning out – not forgetting the shotgun hermeneutics that surfaced and has been doing its rounds of late.
I do not purport to be a historian of science. But I can categorically state, Erv, that the answer to your question is NO. Comparing the status of science in Adventism with the status of natural philosophy(It would be a misnomer to call it science), primarily during the Abassid dynasty, over a thousand years ago, strikes me as tortured, if I may put it charitably. It is my understanding that few of Islam’s “natural philosophers” were Muslim in any meaningful sense. Like you, Erv, they were quite contemptuous of their religion as a legitimate source of knowledge. Giving Islam credit for their work would be like attributing to Adventism the work of Dr. Taylor and calling this the Golden Age for Adventist intellectual pursuits.
More importantly, Adventism has wholeheartedly embraced science in general, though not the naturalistic theories that scientists have inferred from empirical evidence. The conflict between science and creationism has very different origins and has followed a completely different trajectory than the conflict between Islam and science. Islam radically rejected empiricism, rationalism, and any life of the mind beyond the Quran. Adventists, by constrast, have always embraced modernism’s methodological approach.
In “The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution,” James Hannam demonstrates that faith in the Bible as the Word of God may well have been the fuel that enabled great thinkers with religious passion to break through the confines of Greek rationalism and empiricism to discover through science a God who chooses to reveal Himself through predictable laws and processes in an orderly universe. I know it may come as a shock to you, Erv. But science does not begin and end with faith in mainstream evolutionary theory. In fact, the birth of modern science had nothing to do with evolutionary theory.
And of course Adventism has never aspired to wield political power. So I think, with the very limited exception of evolutionary theory, which is a tiny spit in the ocean of science, Adventist scientists have nothing to fear. While I deplore the move to narrow FB 6, I think the analogy to Islam is demagogic, hyperbolic and infelicitous.
Nate intones: “While I deplore the move to narrow FB 6, I think the analogy to Islam is demagogic, hyperbolic and infelicitous.”
Sir, I object. My thesis may be infelicitous (lovely word), but hyperbolic? I think not. As for being demagogic . . . Hmmn. Let us consider this carefully. Demagogic: “of, relating to, or characteristic of a demagogue.” Demagogue: “a person, especially an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people.” Dear me. “Arousing the passions of the people?” Don’t I wish.
As usual when we come to this site on matters of literal creation we are aghast at the comments of those who for some strange reason wish to be somehow affiliated with the SDA movement. Please go join the JW’s or any other evolutionistic views of creation being purported. Once the literal creation goes out the door the Sabbath is right behind and that day is surely coming for most of the participants of AT but we won’t be sticking around to read about it.