More Texts for SS « Origins » Lesson 4
by Jack Hoehn
These comments continue a weekly discussion on the current Sabbath School lessons on Origins Lesson 4. They attempt to open the conversation to a broader understanding of Creation than simply young-earth, short-week Creationism.
In general I find Lesson 4 very useful, showing additional creation stories throughout the Bible, which add breadth and context to the Genesis 1,2 stories. It is clear that Jesus and the Bible writers take creation literally. They all accept that God created time and sky and earth, and everything in it. It is not clear that they had any particular chronology in mind.
The disconnect comes when the author/editor insists that if you accept that the creation stories are real, this means you have to accept their Young Earth Chronology of events including a short few thousand year history of life on earth and an even shorter understanding of the Creation Days as a common 7 x 24 hour day week, 144 hours of which were supposedly used for the creation of everything on earth.
We know many good Christians have believed this, including our 19th century prophetess. But it is becoming impossible for 21st century Christians to accept the 17th century chronology of Ussher and the creation days as 24-hour days.
There is much good evidence to the contrary, available to all of who want to know. The universe has grown much larger than our spiritual leaders in the past could know. And the history of the creation of life on earth is much more complex than they could have known. God of course knows, but it is clear that on scientific questions God does not use revelation to replace what he expects us to learn on our own. Neither Moses nor Jesus gave scientific revelations. The task of science has been delegated to us. It is our job to figure things out. Just as it’s our task to feed ourselves the best diet, our task to build our own houses and furnish them, our task to care for the needs of animals, widows, orphans and aliens.
We know church leaders have been wrong before on the shut door, on the use of tobacco and pork, on which day to worship, and on the date Jesus would return to earth in the clouds of heaven. Adventists from the beginning are a movement which has had to change our emphasis and our teachings. We had to move from legalism to righteousness by faith.
This seems to be another time for correction of our teachings, to align more perfectly with the truth as God has revealed it to us in the best scientific discoveries. Just because Satan has tried to use science to promote atheism, does not mean we should not use science to promote faith in the Creator God. We just have to stop promoting an impossible and extra-biblical chronology on creation.
The problem is that the lessons only give you two choices, Young Earth Creationism or godless evolution. And they lump Christian evolutionists in the same black pot, plus refusing to consider the other varieties of creationists as Old Earth Creationists (OEC), who are not evolutionists, and the Intelligent Design (ID) movement whose Christian proponents find even Christian evolution inadequate for either the scientific or the biblical evidence.
Alternative views of creation tend to be concordist, that is they try to have the Bible and the evidence from nature agree. OEC and ID movements challenge the naturalistic, godless interpretations of nature and the whole premise that science must not consider the possibility of divine interventions. But they do not deny the evidence of the age of the universe and of life on earth.
I believe that authentic Adventist Theology has something very important to offer these movements in the Great Controversy understanding of life. I will write on this another place and another time. For this week’s Sabbath School Lesson, however, let’s consider some of the many Bible texts which help us consider a longer chronology of creation than simply 144 magical hours, 6,000 very short years ago.
Bible texts on creation found outside of Genesis 1, 2.
What hints might these Bible texts give of an older earth and a more complex creation than 144 hours in 6 earth days?
Theologian and Astronomer Hugh Ross has listed many of the Bible texts supporting the concordance or agreement of the Bible with the best of Science. Here are a few of them.
God created the beginning of time when he created the Universe:
2 Timothy 1:9 “This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time.”
God and Jesus existed before the creation of the Universe:
John 17:24 “You loved me before the creation of the kosmos.”
Every part of the Universe is God’s creation, so when we observe events in galaxies and stars we are observing what God did and is doing, such as the ongoing creation of new stars as we speak, but happening over time, not instantaneously:
Colossians 1:16-17 “For by him all things were created: thing in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”
The Bible speaks of the forming of a baby in the mother’s womb as “creation” so the fact that things happen in what we consider a natural way, does not mean that they are not God’s creation:
Psalm 139:13 “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.” Also Job 31:15.
The universe has been continually expanding from the beginning of time and space (the Big Bang):
Job 9:8 “He stretches out the heavens…”
Psalm 104:2 “He stretches out the heavens like a tent.”
Isaiah 40:22 “He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.”
The Universe including earth is subject to fixed physical laws:
Jeremiah 33:25 “This is what the LORD says: ‘If I have not established my covenant with day and night and the fixed laws of heaven and earth…”
All of creation is subject to the same laws:
Romans 8:20-22 “For the creation was subjected….to decay…the whole creation…”
Bible metaphors give a sense of great age. God’s eternal existence is compared to the duration of the mountains, oceans, rivers, hills, soil, and fields:
Psalm 90:2 “Before the mountains were born, before you gave birth to earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.”
Ecclesiastes 1:4, 10 “Generations come and generations go, but the earth remains forever… It was here already long ago…”
Micah calls the earth everlasting (or enduring):
Micah 6:2 “Hear O mountains…listen you everlasting (enduring) foundations of the earth….”
Habakkuk declares God is eternal, but the mountains are “ancient” and the hills “age-old”:
Habakkuk 3:6 “The ancient mountains crumbled and the age-old hills collapsed. His ways are eternal.”
Peter says the heavens and earth existed “long ago”:
2 Peter 3:5 “they…forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and (surrounded) by water.”
Now perhaps long ago was 4,000 years? But not when God’s eternal existence is compared to the ancient and age-old earth. Doesn’t 4.6 Billion years for age of the earth seems like a bit more of a comparison to God’s eternity, than 4,000 years? Although Peter of course didn’t know that number.
Neither did Job, and both would agree that God could have created in any time he pleased, from instantaneous, to a 7 solar day week, to spread out over longer ages of an ancient and age-old earth: Job 42:1-2 “Then Job replied to the LORD: I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted…surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know.”
I hope that Adventism like Job will be willing, as more of God’s creation, more of his plans become revealed, to repent of our narrow chronological dogmatism on things like the true age of the earth we did not before understand, things perhaps new and different than we thought before, but perhaps things that will turn out in truth to be too wonderful to even now imagine!
Many times Ellen White’s agreement with Ussher’s short chronology of life on earth is used to stop this discussion, so let me remind you of her other words that may permit this discussion to continue.
"There is no excuse for anyone in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make an error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation.” Ellen G. White, Review and Herald, December 20, 1892.
Creationism is surely our true and foundational doctrine. The Adventist possible error is not Creationism, but an inadequate chronology of the age of the universe, the earth, and the wonderful creation events so simply and beautifully outlined in Genesis 1 and 2.
Jack, I see progress in your approach to that last EGW quote. I agree with you that Creationism is a sine qua non not only of Adventism, but of Christianity.
The Creationism of the Bible has NO problem with a short chronology of 6,000+. The problem arises when we attempt to play hopscotch between what the biblical author intends and what he "should have written" based on questionable modern scientific presuppositions.
Cheers!
"…questionable modern scientific presuppositions." Hmmmm. Which would these be?
That much physical evidence exists of humans and human-like beings on earth more than 6,000 years ago?
Even more than 60,000 or 600,000 years ago? Fossil evidence indicating a probably common ancestor
of humans and chimpanzees about 6 million years ago, or fossil prosimian primates from about 60 million years ago. And on, and on, and on….
Joe, the Bible and science agree that life was created in stages–first this, then that, later this.
They disagree on the mechanism of that creation, if it was spontaneous or guided, random or planned, and about the chronology of those events.
You may posit a common ancestor, Andre may posit a common Designer.
At the end of the day, I'm hopeful Joe will be open to consider other mechanisms than unguided neo-Darwinian. I'm hopeful Andre will agree that we can safely stop supporting an impossible chronology and let the Bible describe why things happened, not how or when.
I'm grateful that there is still a forum where all of us can test our ideas about the past against each other, thank you Adventist Today and Spectrum. Thank you Joe. Thank you Andre.
Thank you Jack for opening up this blog topic – for one who has to teach the lesson every week it's a great restorer of sanity!
Re, "Joe, the Bible and science agree that life was created in stages–first this, then that, later this.
They disagree on the mechanism of that creation," – I'm not sure the Bible has anything to say about the mechanism of Creation, and I certainly don't find it in Gen 1 or 2. I'd like to think that the sooner we get away from this trying to make Gen a physics/geology textbook approach the faster our understanding will grow.
and BTW I trust that my mind is surrendered to God, and that under his Spirit we will all be led to see beautiful truths about our Lord & Creator bursting out of these powerful passages.
Thank you, Jack. I have no wish to discredit design or a "Designer," even though I see natural selection as a likely process of biological change. I do not see that concept as a "darwinian" invention, since Alfred Russel Wallace suggested it to Charles Darwin as a possible mechanism (based on experience with artificial selection and with variation in nature). So, I'm not going to argue in support of a set of views subsumed under the "neo-darwinian" label. What matters to me is good evidence and clear thinking. That means to me that any suggested mechanism for which there is evidence should receive due consideration.
I see supporting and trying to teach an impossible chronology as undermining all other messages of the church, and I think that is sad. What it does is indicate a stubborn refusal to accept physical reality and tangible evidence–the sorts of things that are fundamental to health, medicine, nutrition, anatomy, physiology, reproduction, etc., essentially all biology and much regarding the use of systematic scientific methods to acquire, refine, and evaluate information.
ID vs. natural selection is another matter, which can be informed, at least to some degree, by evidence. Sincere best wishes to Andre, Jack, and all….
"let the Bible describe why things happened, not how or when."
But this should be done within the framework and context that the creation stories were composed from earlier Sumerian creation stories with only minor changes. Also, recognizing no humans were present to observe creation.
Bible literalists are quite selective in those portions they accept as accurate and factual and prescriptive; yet easily dismiss others that are out-dated and of no relevance to moderns today. In this way, one can choose certain texts to promote a favorite theme and overlook others covering the same topic. Such is our human nature to be selective in those things that support and confirm our opinions.
Yes and no. The Hebrew account of creation is particularly similar to the Babylonian Enum Elish, in the same was as the flood story in Gen to the Epic of Gilgamesh and Atrahasis' Story.
However, the Hebrew account is also remarkedly different to these pagan accounts. Moses no doubt used elements and concepts in these well-known ancient pagan stories, but then twisted them, to teach the children of Israel how the basics of monotheism.
For example:
The funny thing is in many ways Enuma Elish is more in-line with modern scientific observations about the creation of our universe and world through evolution. As SS1 noted, some YEC see this as proof of some sort of ancient conspiracy favouring evolution – given the Babylonians were somewhat thinking about it in some 2,000 BCE.
However, to me, the Hebrew story in Gen is an affirmation of a hope we don't see with our own ours – that despite the tooth and claw darwinian struggle around us there is a loving Creator God who is good, as is His creation. Moreover, human beings aren't just another animal (as science might like to tell us), but something special.
The Hebrews likewise instictively recognised the truth of evolution way back 2,000 years ago as well. Unlike the YEC, the ancient Hebrews didn't simply deny evolutions reality as much as recognised the moral vacuum that recognition of darwinism presents – seen in ancient Bablyonian society and in 20th-centry societies alike that both embraced Social Darwinism.
"We know many good Christians believed this, including our 19th century prophetess. But it is becoming impossible for 21st century Christians to accept the 17th century chronology of Ussher and the creation days as 24 hour days.
There is much good evidence to the contrary available to all of who want to know. The universe has grown much larger than our spiritual leaders in the past could know."
Really, now! So our spirituality is superior to those who were not as "advanced" intellectually as we? The underlying premise being that of our arising from some primordial soup according to a kind of intelligent genetic mutation. What is the real science here? It cannot be that of simple faith in God's revelation of Himself. The facts lie in Luke 3:23-38 and Matthew 19:4-6. And, "evening and morning" and "from even til even" shall you celebrate rest in God's ability to be real. He has often spoken in parables, but not in myths. He can keep that which He has entrusted to us, and does not need self-styled interlopers.
Our Creator became our Savior, the Jehovah of ancient Israel now leading modern spiritual Israel. And He chooses His own messengers, who tell the unvarnished truth applicable to our time. Here is one such statement:
"The great controversy between the Prince of light and the prince of darkness has not abated one jot or tittle of its influence as time has gone on. . . The synagogue of Satan is intensely active, and in this age the deceiving power of the enemy is working in the most subtle way. Every human mind that is not surrendered to God and is not under the control of the Spirit of God, will be perverted through satanic agencies. . . .
"All the vast, complicated machinery of evil agencies is put into action in these last days. . . (Satan) is a deceiver, and through his serpentine sharpness, through his crooked practises, he has drawn to himself the homage which man should have given to God, and has planted his satanic throne between human worshiper and the divine Father. . .
"The form Satan assumed in Eden when leading our first parents to transgress, was of a character to bewilder and confuse the mind. He will work in as subtle a manner as we near the end of earth’s history. All his deceiving power will be brought to bear upon human subjects, to complete the work of deluding the human family." RH 4-14-96
"Every human mind that is not surrendered to God and is not under the Spirit of God, will be perverted through satanic agencies…."
What a wonderful recipe for hatefulness toward anyone who is perceived as disagreeing with you. This seems completely out of synchrony with the message of love and grace attributed to Jesus. I get the feeling that some of what has been seen as spirituality has been symptomatic of paranoid delusions, if not frank schizophrenia.
"The synagogue of Satan is intensely active, and in this age the deceiving power of the enemy is working in the most subtle way. Every human mind that is not surrendered to God and is not under the control of the Spirit of God, will be perverted through satanic agencies. . . ."
Foolish hearts have darkened the minds to a true understanding of Scripture. No hate here is evidenced in the quoted words, just truth that is so often scorned in these blogs. God help us before it is too late.
Maranatha
Thanks Jack.
The problem with your position is that you cherry-pick what you believe the intent of the Bible author is. While the author of Genesis clearly states that God created (b'reshit barah ELOHIM) he also states that it was in six contiguous days and not in the distant past. So I don't follow what you mean when you say
"Andre will agree that we can safely stop supporting an impossible chronology and let the Bible describe why things happened, not how or when."
The how and when is inextricably tied with the WHY.
I'm afraid that the more firmly people insist on a recent creation, the less credible is all else they believe.
But, what can I say? Believe what you can for as long as you can, if that is what pleases you.
Don't be surprised, however, when young people reject the whole thing because part of it is so far from where all the strong evidence leads.
"Don't be surprised, however, when young people reject the whole thing because part of it is so far from where all the strong evidence leads."
Joe, do you accet Creation but reject the timeline?
What are the hermeneutical controls that allow you to do that.
Thanks
"For instance, scientists once believed in spontaneous generation of life. Then they rejected the idea, only later to accept it. The same can be said of catastrophism, which science first accepted, rejected, than again accepted. Such patterns warn us of the grouplike behavior in the scientific thought process."
Max Planck once said: "new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponnets eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
Maranatha
Page 295 Origins by ArielRoth
Andre, no, I recognize the timeline is long and full of evidence, both with regard to geological time and fossil evidence of many life forms, including many that have long been extinct. The paleontological and genomic evidence all indicates deep time and biological change. I do not know of any way to verify the role of a Creator. Just because I do not understand how "creation" occurred does not mean that God had no role. So, I am not a "believer" in special creation; however, I am not an "evangelical" evolutionist either. But even if you don't accept any evidence of evolution, the 6000 yr recent creation timeline is wildly contrary to objective evidence.
One infinitely worthy was accused by his fellow believers of being under Satanic influence.
Mark 3:28-30.
Please don't worry about the fallible messenger, decide on the content of the message.
Did God create earth or not? Did God create life or not? Did God create chemistry, physics or not? If so, why not trust them to contain God's truth? Why not demand that Biblical interpretation must agree with God's works in nature. Must.
Satan will not have to work very hard to discredit Christ as the Creator, if we hold our version of His creation as the only way. It may feel noble for us to believe in our dear simple unexplored myths against the evidence of something far more complex.
Satan can rejoice that he has made of non-effect our Testimony to Jesus, by making us feel noble and righteous, but completely irrelevant to the thinking world. Satan is indeed clever. He gets good people to think they are opposing him, while they promote his hidden agenda of destroying the influence for good of Seventh-day Adventists.
Hier stehe ich, ich kann nicht anders, Gott hilf mir.
I seldom comment on these sites. I enjoy reading the many different comments and ideas of others. I do feel that this article deserves a short comment from me. I see it this way. If you do away with the literal six day creation, you do away with the Sabbath. If you do away with the Sabbath, you do away with the law. If you do away with the law, then, Jesus died for nothing! It is so simple. Why do people try and make it complicated? The true story of creation was put into the Bible for us to read and believe. It is called Faith! EGW says that science and creation should compliment one another. It is man that muddies the waters. Our problem comes in when we begin to think we are smarter than God! Heaven help us all to get back to the basics of belief in God, the Word and EGW. The Lord is coming very soon. Let us live by Faith and leave the rest to God!!!
It is all too neat and tidy:
There must be a six-day creation
In order to support the sabbath
If sabbath falls, the law becomes invalid
With the law no longer valid, Jesus died for nothing.
This is often the very simple explanation, but there are several inconsistencies.
1. Sabbath as an observance for man does not rest on creation but the law at Sinai when it was first introduced and given to man.
2. It was given to the Israelites to remember their release from slavery given by God; and it was not given to pagans, only Israelites.(Deut. 5)
3. The Law as Christian's guide to live became obsolete when Christ replaced the Law and he is now our guide. (Gal. 3)
4. Jesus died to save the whole world and his only command was to love one another. There is no long a law written in stone, but love is now written in our hearts. (Hebrews)
The difficulty is in defining terms for the word "law" as it is used in the Bible for the entire Torah; the Israelite law containing 613 rules, and the natural law given to man by God at creation. The Decalogue was unknown until Sinai, but it was, nevertheless a sin when Cain killed Abel; there was sin in the world before and after the flood. Man has been given reasoning power and natural law needs no specific prohibitions as in all cultures it is recognized the killing, stealing, lying, etc., are wrong.
Butayl, I am uncomfortable with your very sincere and well meaning concerns being answered by someone who wants to see the demise of the Sabbath as we Adventists understand it, so please let me try to respond to you instead of Elaine who may be a fine person, but has an anti-Sabbatarian agenda that I do not have.
You have been told by some of our theologians, based on Ellen White's statements, that accepting evolution as an explanation for origins does away with foundational truths of Adventism. I believe that they are correct.
You have been told by some of our scientists, that the world God has created, has left us much evidence that the age of life and the universe itself is much, much, much longer than a simple reading of the creation story God inspired Moses to record. So our theologians get very excited at this point and say, whoa! You are going to become evolutionists and destroy the Bible message, including the Sabbath, the moral law, and Jesus death was just a common death, not the key fact of our universe.
What I want you to hear is that there is a third way. Not evolutionist, Not short 6,000 year history of life. It is a believer's way, a creationist way, a Sabbath keeping way, and belief in natural and moral laws, and a most reverent appreciation that the creator of all this complexity would come submit to the consequences of broken law for our salvation. It is called Old Earth Creationism, for believers. And even many scientists find that a non evolutionist, non short term creationist explanation of life called Intelligent Design fits the facts nicely too.
Read all my blogs and you will see that Sabbath and all it means does not get damaged by accepting that God created, but in a longer and more complex way than a simple reading.
The message of Jesus was not complicated. It was, essentially, God loves you and you are free from the bondage under the law. Just believe it and it will be so. You will know the truth and it will make you free.
So, love one another, and treat yourselves and others with respect.
That's not complicated. One can simply accept all that. Simply. And that can really be enough, can't it? And leave the rest to God?
Beyond that, I see no reason why one cannot celebrate all of nature as somehow the creation or will of God, as marvelously complex and ancient, and even as revelatory of the power and authority of God (or other forces beyond our ability to comprehend). Detailed discovery of the natural world is not an afront to anything spiritual or creative. A creator is not diminished by knowledge and appreciation of that which he has created.
So, the Genesis story does not specify when "In the Beginning" was. Claims that it does are not scriptural. The existence of "days" before there was a sun defies the imagination. And there is a key. The Genesis story is just that: a story. A story told about origins, told in terms that could be appreciated by people at the time the story was told. Simple. Not complicated. Nothing to stimulate arguments about the shape of the earth or anything of the sort. If this story was provided by God, it was not provided to confuse us.
Resting on the seventh day in memory and acknowledgement of the Creator is a fine tradition. It isn't a matter of "Do this or I will kill you!" The message of Jesus probably was mostly intended to correct the impression given by extreme legalistic tradition that "God hates you!" Wasn't the message of Jesus that the law has no power over you? That the legalistic tradition was a profound distortion of who God was?
There is no end to complex and unproductive speculation about the unseen spirit world and the mind of God. So why spend our time that way? There is enough to do, learning about and celebrating the wonders of nature and engaging in constructive action to promote the well being of humans and other beings.
So, I wish you all a joyous Sabbath, filled to the brim with rest and recreation.
Joe,
I have mentioned this before, so I apologize in advance if I sound like a broken record (as my Dad would say); but when, in the interest of simplicity, we abridge or truncate “the message of Jesus,” it actually distorts it.
Jesus’ message was that God loves us so much that He sent His one and only Son to save us from death and give us (i.e. “the world”) eternal life as a result of believing in His Son. God didn’t send His Son to earth to condemn us, but to save us from sin’s inevitable consequences.
We are condemned as we reject this Escape Hatch from any and all condemnation. Love, particularly for God is actually the key. It is the only way we can “love one another.”
At that point, we can “leave the rest to God.” All we have to do is want to love Him and believe/accept His Son. He has given us His best Gifts.
For what it’s worth, I think that you are right on about the Sabbath’s meaning and purpose not being about “extreme legalistic tradition,” and that this tradition represented a “profound distortion of who God was.”
The deepest meaning of Sabbath to me is that it represents rest in Jesus from our own works for salvation. When we understand He has saved us from the second and eternal death, we no longer ignore Him and through His Spirt grow into mature faith and trust. That is the rest we celebrate each Sabbath.
There is nothing wrong with the law other than it cannot save you; it was praised and celebrated by God's people. For one living in Christ, it is written in the heart.
Yes Ella. Science too is predicated on the fixed laws of nature, so the Christian scientist also has many reasons to respect the moral laws as well as nature respects natural law. Sabbath can be celebrated by believers no matter what chronology of Creation they adopt, for all the good reasons you mention.
Joe, Your 1st paragraph above was a good start. Believe there was a bit more.
Believe in your ransom bondsman, our Creator, Jesus Christ, accept His life for yours. John. 14:16-18, Jesus said"He would not leave us comfortless, that He would send the Holy Spirit and He will abide with you FOREVER, the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth Him not, neither knoweth Him: but you know Him; for He DWELLETH with you, and SHALL BE IN YOU".
A. i believe the creation of Earth & Space was a SUPER NATURAL EVENT. It therefore is not a complex & unproductive speculation. I glory in the infinite speculative possibilities of God's majestic realm. He gives us a preview by displaying the beauty of Earth & the Space scene.
B. Skepticism of the abiding Holy Spirit, living in us,convicting us when we stumble, reassuring us, loving us, leading us into truth, knowledge, and wisdom, is closing the mind to God's ongoing sanctification process. Too much scholarly concentration to a specialized study which offers an alternative to God's Word, may place one beyond the ability of the Holy Spirit to woo. A little child, in its innocence, shall lead them. God's way, or the world's broad freeways. Your choice.
C. We should not become !! HOT !!, and disageeable on time lines, & other subjects, but earnestly seek what God discloses on these things; and the rest is free speculation for all to participate, without being informed or insinuated that they are idiots.
God's richest grace and blessings is my prayer for each of us, through the indwelling of God the Holy Spirit. Praise God the Father, God the Son, Jesus, God the Holy Spirit, on this the Holy Sabbath Day.
I wish there was a way to EDIT comments, my typos are now etched in "stone"… :o(
Jack and Joe
All I'd like to see is a CONSISTENT hermeneutical method from you guys when approaching Genesis. You can't accept one part of the story and reject the other without incurring in exegetical cherry-picking and theological gyrations to keep the "best" from both worlds, "science" and faith…
You are welcome to believe whatever you want about the origin of the universe, God is not forcing anyone to accept his Creatorship. But at least, let's be consistent when approaching these ancient texts, shall we?
Cheers!
Andre I believe we are using a consistent hermeneutical method, and a very Adventist one.
We accept that God has inspired holy men and women to communicate His ideas to us. (2 Peter 1:21)
We accept that these men and women are real normal humans, not unfallen angels, not spiritualists having a séance who were merely heavenly typewriters. The words are theirs, not God’s. (2 Samuel 23:2)
The word of God then is true and authoritative, but not infallible, not God's way of thought or expression, not magical words. (Isaiah 55:8)
We accept that truth is progressive, as God has shown us in nature, first the seed, then the sprout, then the full plant with many seeds. (Mark 4:28) This means that the books of Moses are not the last word on any subject, they are the first word, they introduction to truth, not the end of truth.
Christ, the WORD, many times corrected or expanded the way Moses words were understood. (Matthew 5:18-48)
Revelation is partial, not complete or comprehensive. (John 16:12)
Because inspired writers are capable but limited humans we in the 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th and 21st centuries can best understand their words in the original languages and the original cultures they were produced in. Moses was educated in the thought of Egypt and its science and his mighty words were those of that age and culture, used in the service of God’s ideas put in his mind by the Holy Spirit. (Acts 7:22)
(PS: Ellen White read the thoughts and science of the 19th century and her mighty words were those of the 19th century and its culture, used in the service of God’s agenda put into her mind by visions and dreams used by the Holy Spirit. But here are her 19th century words on inspiration–The Bible is not given to us in grand superhuman language. Jesus, in order to reach man where he is, took humanity. The Bible must be given in the language of men. Everything that is human is imperfect. Different meanings are expressed by the same word; there is not one word for each distinct idea. The Bible was given for practical purposes….GC p. 17)
SO what does this view of inspiration mean? Because Moses wrote of a firmament, you don’t have to be upset when our space explorers don’t find one. When Moses wrote of the 6 creation yom (days) you can accept that “different meanings are expressed by the same word”, that day can mean “daylight”(Gen 1:5), sunset to sunset(Exodus 20:9), back at that time, indefinite duration, “back then”(Genesis 2:4), a year (Ezekiel 4:6), a thousand years (Psalm 90:4, 2Peter 3:8). Permitting us to understand the Creation Days as heavenly days, not as solar days for all the good reasons we have before listed. You can understand that the story makes most sense in an Egyptian understanding of how the earth and sky were constructed. That the meaning is Who created and why, and now how or when, except in general common sense terms.
“We know many good Christians have believed this, including our 19th century prophetess.”
—————
Is Dr Hoehn saying that Ellen White was wrong regarding the literal 24 hour creation days? Let’s see what she says about this. Note – I don’t usually use Ellen white quotes on this particular website due to a vast majority here who do not accept her messages to the church as authoritative to say the least.
1] Yet with the living oracles before them, those who claim to preach the word present the suppositions of human minds, the maxims and commandments of men. They make void the law of God by their traditions. The sophistry in regard to the world’s being created in an indefinite period of time is one of Satan’s falsehoods. God speaks to the human family in language they can comprehend. He does not leave the matter so indefinite that human beings can handle it according to their theories. When the Lord declares that He made the world in six days and rested on the seventh day, He means the day of twenty-four hours, which He has marked off by the rising and setting of the sun. {TM 135.3}
2] God made the world in six literal days, and on the seventh literal day He rested from all His work which He had done, and was refreshed. So He has given man six days in which to labor. But He sanctified the day of His rest, and gave it to man to be kept, free from all secular labor. By thus setting apart the Sabbath, God gave the world a memorial. He did not set apart one day and any day in seven, but one particular day, the seventh day. And by observing the Sabbath, we show that we recognize God as the living God, the Creator of heaven and earth. {TM 136.2}
3] The first week, in which God performed the work of creation in six days and rested on the seventh day, was just like every other week. The great God, in his days of creation and day of rest, measured off the first cycle as a sample for successive weeks till the close of time. “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created.” God gives us the result of his work on each of the days of creation. Each day was accounted of him a generation, because every day he generated, or produced, some new portion of his work. On the seventh day of the first week God rested from his labor, and then blessed the day of his rest, and set it apart for the use of man. The weekly cycle of seven literal days, six for labor and the seventh for rest, which has been preserved and brought down through Bible history, originated in the great facts of the first seven days. {ST March 20, 1879, par. 1}
5] But the infidel supposition, that the events of the first week required seven vast, indefinite periods for their accomplishment, strikes directly at the foundation of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. It makes indefinite and obscure that which God has made very plain. It is the worst kind of infidelity; for with many who profess to believe the record of creation, it is infidelity in disguise. It charges God with commanding men to observe the week of seven literal days in commemoration of seven indefinite periods, which is unlike his dealings with mortals, and is an impeachment of his wisdom. {ST March 20, 1879, par. 3}
6] Infidel geologists claim that the world is very much older than the Bible record makes it. They reject the testimony of God’s word because of those things which are to them evidences from the earth itself that it has existed tens of thousands of years. And many who profess to believe the Bible are at a loss to account for wonderful things which are found in the earth, with the view that creation week was only seven literal days, and that the world is now only about six thousand years old. These, to free themselves from difficulties thrown in their way by infidel geologists, adopt the view that the six days of creation were six vast, indefinite periods, and the day of God’s rest was another indefinite period; making senseless the fourth commandment of God’s holy law. Some eagerly receive this position; for it destroys the force of the fourth commandment, and they feel a freedom from its claims upon them. {ST March 20, 1879, par. 4}
Dear October 22, it would not be helpful for me to list all the honest errors of our prophetess, including those above.
Sister White was right that infidel theories from infidel geologists and biologists saying that life happened by itself and no God necessary is "the worst kind of infidelity". Read Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris.
She might even have been right that some "who profess to believe the Bible" eagerly receive this position to feel freedom from Sabbath observance. But I am not impressed by infidel geologists, I am impressed by Christian geologists and Adventist scientists. I am not looking for a way to be free from any of God's law, including the Sabbath. And I have not eagerly received this position, it has been long and slow to convince me of its truth, with rather profound regret.
But when the evidence is clear that a prophet was wrong that Ninevah would be destroyed in 30 days; or that circumcision was a only a temporary and culturally appropriate sign of the covenant, not universally applicable to all humanity; or that not building a fire on the Sabbath and cooking was a command only suitable for people living in a warm desert and not in Canada; then I thank Jonah and Moses, for communicating God's ideas to us in the best way they could at that time, and move on. I still valuing their service in helping me understand the God they were fallibly trying to reveal to their audience.
Ellen White was fighting atheism writing to an audience of Christians who with her accepted the Ussher chronology of the Bible, and a 6 literal day creation story. She would have had no audience and been of no help if she had known or been shown that the Geologists were right about the testimony of "wonderful things found in the earth" or much less that the earth itself has existed for not "tens of thousands of years" but for hundreds of million years. That was not appropriate information in 1879 in a magazine article to Christians. God in sundry times and in divers manners speaks to us through vessels of clay.
Sister White does not claim inerrancy, and you do her a disservice to claim that she was always right in fact, or doctrine. Please scan to the top of this page, and read the last paragraphs again. Keep reading that paragraph until is sinks in, SISTER WHITE NEEDS TO BE PERMITTED TO BE WRONG IN DETAIL, CHRONOLOGY, EMPHASIS.
She is a true and honest messenger of God. She is not always right. I suspect you ride a bicycle, have not gone insane from self abuse, do not believe that leprosy is caused by eating pork, know that many drugs are not poisons, have proven that eating vegetables and fruit together is only a problem for some individuals and likely not you, and accept that volcanos like Mt. St. Helens are not caused by coal fires burning under ground. None of this has kept you from valuing Steps to Christ, or the Desire of Ages, or accepting the general principles of Health Reform.
Ellen White and Jack Hoehn are not fighting over the doctrine of Creation. We are disagreeing that there is only one possible chronology of Creation. Moses was right in explaining the Creation using an Egyptian view of the cosmos. Ellen was right in opposing godless materialism against a Christian view of life. Both Moses and Ellen need to be reinterpreted in 2013 based on the available good quality evidence and both the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy need to be freed from the false doctrine of inerrancy.
We can not hold truth hostage to Ellen White. I have read every published book she has written and most of her magazine articles, and I am convinced she would put her arm around us both , and say,
“In regard to infallibility, I never claimed it; God alone is infallible. His word is true, and in Him is no variableness or shadow of turning.”—Ellen G. White letter 10, 1895.
I respectfully disagree, Dr Hoehn, with your partial and conditional acceptance of Ellen White writings and see now where the tangent you have taken in some of your beliefs may stem from. Most others also who have embraced differing views with Ellen White also hold on to doctrines not in harmony with the church and the bible. Yes, I believe that her writings are in harmony with the bible.
What you seem to avoid highlighting in your blogs is the belief that there was evolutionary processes involved in mankind before Adam and Eve came on the scene thereby implying that there was much death 'before' sin entered the world. Do you have chronological proof of this? How is it that the Bible, Ellen White and the rest of the Christian Church got it wrong?
As far as I can see, there is not even a remote reference to any form of macro evolution being involved or used by God in the act of Creation as per bible narrative. I respectfully will have to decline buying into your understanding of this. I'll still have to go with her counsel rather than yours for now.
It would have been forthright of you to say to Adventists, that your deep time creation old earth belief also includes the process of lower life forms created by God, evolving after eons of years of life and death until Adam and Eve arrive on the scene. Are you suggesting that the Sabbath School Quarterly editor and the Church include this view as a well-grounded biblical explanation of our origins? I think that will be pushing it a bit Sir and you definitely won’t get my vote on this one. I’m sure you understand why.
I guess I meant to start, I am sorry if you have a TOTAL and unconditional acceptance… See rest below.
I am sorry if you have an impartial and unconditional acceptance of everything written by our ancestral sister in Christ, Ellen G. White. You sound like Dr.David Paulson who wrote to her in 1906 while she was still alive stating that ‘I was led to conclude and most firmly believe that every word you ever spoke in public or private, that every letter you wrote under any and all circumstances, was as inspired as the ten commandments.’ Ellen White corrected him, and I hope you will let her correct you before you stray further down that unfruitful path.
I expect the Creation lessions to teach Adventist to be open to other Christian interpretations than 6,000 year 6 literal day creationism. I urge that the Adventist church stand fast that God is the Creator of all, but as to the details of how and the chronology of when he created we leave open to Adventist theologians, scientists, and members to think about, argue about, and try to come to a Spirit led concensus.
Deciding this question by vote of church employee delegates on this fundamental beliefs #6 is a foolish and presumptious proposition that I am praying God will prevent the General Conference from taking.
An extremely balanced and biblical hermeneutic in your last three posts here. You should write this up and submit it for an article for discussion in the Ministry journal. Thanks for your contributions.
Thank's Darrel, but I'm sure you and other pastors could do a better job of that than I could.
"You sound like Dr.David Paulson who wrote to her in 1906 while she was still alive stating that ‘I was led to conclude and most firmly believe that every word you ever spoke in public or private, that every letter you wrote under any and all circumstances, was as inspired as the ten commandments."
—————-
Dear Dr Hoehn, you are taking what I said about Ellen White writings being in harmony with scripture out of context. I did not say that her writings are equal to the Ten Commandments. You know very well that Ellen White taught that her writings were a 'lesser light' pointing us to the 'greater light' which is the bible. She in no way supercedes the bible or is its equal. The canon of scripture has always stood on its own apart from other inspired writings and has its rightful place as the source and authority on which we as a church base our doctrine and faith.
Regarding Creation Week chronology, Ellen White makes it very clear that it was a literal 24/7 week consisting of seven twenty four hour literal days of which the Bible is in complete agreement with. Your alternative posit is admirable but hardly in line with what the bible teaches especially when you have that trojan teaching of creation by evolution at the heart of it.
Dear October 22, I'm going to bed now, so this is my close of this debate.
The Bible has no chronology of creation. There are no dates in Genesis 1. The dating of creation week is an external imposition on the Bible by self confident Biblical explorers who were playing a 17th century divine's game of suppositions: that if this is true, then that is true, then this is true, and so I deduce by my logic that the world is 6,000 years old!
Wrong, sorry, and please don't use the lesser light to maintain this error. God is still the Creator, but the world is clearly not 6,000 years old.
I'm not sure if your user-name October 22, 1844 means you are still living in the 1844 Adventist world of Knowing the Date of the Second Coming, Closed Door, Sunday Keeping, Pork Eating, Cigar Smoking Millerite Adventism, (or if you are in fact 168 years old, in which case I should be more tolerant of your inability to move on! 🙂
But as the Millerite Adventist family moved with Ellen White away from those errors to new truths, so we today now need to abandon an artificial and speculative chronology that has been shown to be wrong. The world simply is the age it is, not the age EllenWhite wrote it was.
A lesser light that imposes on the Bible something the Bible doesn't say (6,000 years), needs to be turned off on this subject, and turned on someplace else where it can be more helpful.
There is a floodlight of truth on the age of the earth. It is bright and clear enough and has nothing to do with atheism or unbelief, so that it should convince all. It is as convincing as that malaria is caused by mosquito born parasites (Ellen White incorrectly thought it was caused by a foul miasma.)
I would be so happy to hear that we could at least agree on this fact. Ellen White used an inaccurate date for the age of the earth. It was not her fault, but inspiration does not give a prophet information that could be gained by counting Bristlecone pine tree rings, or Greenland ice layers, or measuring radioactivity and using the decay rate for rock frozen in lava flows.
And so to bed….. Jack