Must We Circumcise Creation?
by Jack Hoehn
God commanded circumcision of his ancient church.1 Cutting short the male foreskin was symbolic of submitting to God’s control our powers of creation, or procreation. Before circumcision Sarah proposed and Abraham accepted a creation scheme using an Egyptian slave girl to be the vessel of the promised Seed. But human schemes exploiting a slave’s body were not satisfactory for salvation’s plan so God’s original creation in Abraham and his male descendants was to be cut with a knife, and the little scar was to mark the penance of believers.
For over a thousand years Adam’s carefully designed foreskin became Abraham’s artificially shortened foreskin for all male believers and their wives. It was the distinguishing mark of obedience to God’s holy law. God’s enemies were the un-shortened. David has nothing but scorn for his enemy, that “uncircumcised Philistine” giant.2
JESUS WAS CIRCUMCISED.
Jesus himself was circumcised. (See figure 1) The young ram without spot and blemish, actually had one small blemish. And medieval altars painting the key events of the gospel story for illiterate Christians often include a panel showing Die Beschneidung (The Cutting or Circumcision) of the 8 day old Messiah as a vital part of that story. As children partake of flesh and blood, so it became the Author of our Salvation to be like unto them in all things, including the marks or scars of sin, only without sin.3
Figure 1–The Beschneidung.
Photo taken of Medieval Church Art, Louvre, Paris.
So the 1st century followers of Jesus of Nazareth in church headquarters in Jerusalem were sure that “if it was good enough for Jesus it was good enough for the rest of us.” It was “clearly the teaching of the Bible” that the foreskin of all male believers had to be short. Yes, we were to go into all the world, and preach the gospel to every nation, but part of that gospel had to be the Bible and its undeniable teachings on circumcision, didn’t it?
Is it surprising that certain believers from the headquarters of the church were sent out by leading brethren (how more leading could you get than Jesus brother, James?) to teach that Christians of every nation had to get “back to the Bible”, back to the clear teaching in this immoral world, that there was only one length of foreskin suitable for believers—short.4
CIRCUMCISION OPPONENT
And then there was Paul. Himself with the proper length foreskin, mind you, teaching that length of foreskin was not a pillar of the faith. That long foreskins and short foreskins could both be good Christians, that it was peripheral and not central. And that those trying to enforce it as central were actually doing harm to the church. Ellen White writes that Paul’s circumcising opponents considered he was preaching “daring blasphemy”!5
Why was opposition to circumcision as a condition of belief in Christ such an important issue for St. Paul and for the growth of the Christian church? Because it was not essential. A short foreskin may have been good, Biblical, and God ordained, traditional and the previous universal belief of the godly, but it was not central, vital, pivotal. The length of the foreskin, long or short, should not be allowed to be a hindrance to membership in the Christian church. And enforcing belief in a short foreskin could have killed the growth of Christianity.
James Stalker in his 1912 Life of Paul, writes that if the burden of the circumcisers to enforce their dogma on the entire Christian church had not been stopped by the crushing force of Paul’s polemics against them, “Christianity would have been a river lost in the sands of prejudiced near its very source; it would have been at the present day a forgotten Jewish sect instead of the religion of the world.”6
You know why I am writing. I think that the attempt to enforce a short chronology for creation is the modern equivalent of enforcing circumcision on new gentile converts. I don’t think that believing in a short chronology of life on earth is spiritually wrong, but I think that enforcing that chronology on others is spiritually wrong.
HEALTH BENEFITS OF CIRCUMCISION
Actually as a physician I am strongly in favor of male circumcision. I and my sons are circumcised. And there is no single better way of preventing the acquisition of HIV/AIDs by males in this dangerous world than having all boys circumcised. Universal male circumcision is in fact promoted by the World Health Organization as the present best way, next to abstinence, of fighting male HIV/AIDs transmission.7
Every SDA church in Africa and likely the rest of the world should be promoting male infant circumcision as an Adventist health message as much as abstinence from alcohol and tobacco. But the length of the foreskin should be a scientific and hygienic issue, not a church membership issue.
IMPOSING A SHORT CHRONOLOGY IS LIKE TRYING TO FORCE CIRCUMCISION
Likewise the length of the geologic history of this Created earth, short time or long time, can be an important issue, but it should be a scientific question, not a church membership question.
If from the Adventist church headquarters influential leaders send out messages in the Review demanding a short chronology as the only acceptable understanding of Genesis 1 for Adventists, then we need Sauls and Pauls to point out that short chronology and long chronology is not a key issue, any more than long foreskins or short foreskins was. It can be a scientific question, but should not be a religious question, and surely not a church membership question.
Otherwise Adventism demanding a circumcised, short creation: “would become a river lost in the sands of prejudice very near to its source. It would soon become a forgotten Christian sect, instead of the religion of the world.”
NOTES:
1 Genesis 17:11, the command to circumcise.
2 1 Samuel 17:26, of Goliath.
3 Galatians 2:12
4 Hebrews 2:14,17;4:15
5 E.G. White, Acts of the Apostles, page 390, “(Paul’s) emphatic statement, ‘There is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision or uncircumcision’ was regarded by his enemies as daring blasphemy…”
6 James L. Stalker, Life of Paul, 1912, paragraph 158.
7 WHO & UNAIDS (2007, 28th March), ‘WHO and UNAIDS announce recommendations from expert meeting on male circumcision for HIV prevention
Which would bring new meaning to the phrase: 'circumcise' the globe.
An interesting parallel, which I am sure not all will even understand or approve.
However, I do agree with the basic premise, that whether the earth is 6 ‘human days’ (24 hour periods) or 6 ‘God days’ (epochs of time, as symbolized in a day being a thousand years), the point is it shouldn’t be a test of fellowship issue. I agree that it is certainly an important theological and scientific issue, and one which should be explored, but one that people should be able to explore without fear of excommunication or other unofficial sanction.
I have said it before, I believe all our 28 FBs as they currently already read wouldn’t need to be changed even if people accept a 6 ‘God day’ view of creation. I believe Jack this has likewise being a core mission for you, demonstrating for example, that someone who embraces a 6 ‘God day’ view of creation can still believe in the weekly sanctity of the seventh-day Sabbath.
I certainly hope creation vs evolution doesn’t become the major theological division in our Church as circumcision was for the early NT Church. If it does become a major theological division, I sincerely hope that God will send a Peter to mediate between the Pauls and the Jameses.
And I should just say, and as we have discussed before, I believe the current FBs, especially FB#6 re creation in particular, is sufficiently wide to allow belief in both a 6 ‘human day’ view of creation or a 6 ‘God day’ view of creation. Thus, it is quite inappropriate, at least at this stage, to call anyone a heretic or being outside the official Church, if they embrace a 6 ‘God day’ view of creation.
If this were not so, President Wilson would not have gone to all the trouble to create that working committee to amend FB#6 to make it explicitly a 6 ‘human day’ view of creation. But as President Wilson is not Pope, and until the GC in a world session changes FB#6, then it is quite incorrect to say the SDA Church explicitly requires one conform to a 6 ‘human day’ view of creation as the basis for admission to the SDA Church when swearing the baptismal vow.
As I have also said before. I do think we do need a minimal statement of beliefs, to make clear that we are a Christian Church with unique beliefs, and not merely a bowling club or social charity. However, I worry about the move towards an increasingly prescriptive and ossified belief system that enforces religious ‘orthodoxy’, just like the apostate Churches before us. I would hope we could return to the more theological open and dynamic Church of our pioneers, a Church that was extremely anti-creedal.
As for me, if I were regent of the Church, I would advocate maybe 7 broad fundamental beliefs as core tests of fellowship, but allow and even encourage theological diversity on all else. I am aware not everyone would agree.
Circumcision is a corrective to God's creation. If God was not happy or satisfied with the man he had created, why should it need further work–surgery? It is a confession and admission that God did not really create man and declare "it was good," but that there was surgery necessary to correct his mistake!
God rested on the seventh day according to the Hebrew account. But despite all the erroneous statements that were the basis for instituting the seventh day as a holy day, the church has "amended" the original story to claim that man at that time was given a command to rest on the seventh day, ignoring the fact that there is no such instruction in the Genesis story, and the very first time the sabbath is ever mentioned is at Sinai when it was given to the former slaves AND NO ONE ELSE! Nor is there a single written account of anyone from creation to Sinai of observing a holy day.
From such non-scriptural reasoning, the Adventist church has "created" the seventh day as a holy day for Christians. To claim "the Bible and the Bible only" can not be used to support this doctrine.
I don't agree but I do appreciate that is some clever reasoning. If I understand what you are saying, God made man, but then had to correct that creation through circumcission. Likewise, God created the seventh-day, but had to correct that decision through the resurrection (which either instituted Sunday or perhaps every day as a Sabbath). Is that what you are saying?
Of course this might merely illustrate the dangers of trying to tie through analogy very different and distinct concepts, such as circumcission with the evolution vs creation debate.
I should just add, as to claims that the Sabbath was given to the former slaves of the Hebrews at Sinai, 'And No One Else!' I am not quite sure on what basis Elaine comes to that conclusion.
The Sabbath command itself makes clear it is for everyone – not the manservants and the maidservants, not the foreigner (you know, that non-Hebrew) but even your animals are to have a day off! (Ex 20:10). Moreover, Isaiah 56:6, God certainly expected to foreigner to keep the Sabbath.
Finally, Elaine has the onus all backwards. The onus doesn't rest in us proving the Sabbath still applies. In light of statements such as Matt 5:18, the onus rests on her to show positively that in the NT the Sabbath, or any one of the other Ten Commandments for that matter, are no longer binding on the Christian.
I am happy to be persuaded that the weekly Sabbath (don't try to trick me with texts about Jewish feast days, which could fall on a weekday) is no longer part of the Moral Law of the Great Command to love God with all our hearts.
The first and only command given to man in the garden was to "be fruitful and multiply," anything presumed is not recorded. Evidently, he didn't "realize" his mistake until Abraham. We should be a little less certain of what the Bible means; and even more, of "filling in" what has not been writtenl.
God rested from HIS work; man had done no work but was told to get acquainted with his wife and presumably, he followed orders!
Even assuming God only gave the Sabbath command for the first time at Sinai, that still doesn't adequately explain why it no longer has any relevance for the Christian.
As to what Adam was told and not told, God didn't need to do much 'telling' to Adam, because as a being created perfect, the Law was already written in his heart. Adam was made in God's own nature, and Eve was likewise created in his, so to love both God and Eve was very much a fulfillment of the Golden Rule to love others as oneself.
I agree there is no explicit command for Adam to keep the Sabbath, but there is likewise no other explicit worship command, whether it be to make graven images, or have other gods, or take God's name in vain. Likewise, there is no explicit command re treating fellow humankind, thus there is no command not to steal or not to kill.
God may not have explicitly told Adam to keep the Sabbath, but it is clear that God made the day 'holy', which meant that it was set apart from the rest (Gen. 2:3). Why did He God, who doesn't need rest, do this except as an example for mankind? Why does the 4th commandment in Sinai make such a direct reference to it?
Again, the onus is on you to explain all these things, as to why God's commands re Sabbath-keeping are no longer part of true worship, not on us to prove that it still is.
Stephen thanks for sharing the following point, it filled in a gap I wondered about….. If God created man fully developed and functioning as you mentioned could he not create the earth the same way?
(Mature)
"As to what Adam was told and not told, God didn't need to do much 'telling' to Adam, because as a being created perfect, the Law was already written in his heart. Adam was made in God's own nature, and Eve was likewise created in his, so to love both God and Eve was very much a fulfillment of the Golden Rule to love others as oneself".
Yes I think he could. This is part of the problem between science and theology. Science isn't what 'is' true, it is what is 'observed' as true.
If on the second day after Adam was created (which would actually have been the Sabbath day), if we could send a whole bunch of scientists back in time, how old would they say Adam was? I suspect they would 'observe' he was say about 30 years old, even those he 'is' only 2 days old!
Similarly, did Adam have a belly button? I wouldn't be surprised if he did, even though he clearly didn't need one because he was never a fetus in a womb.
Likewise, even if scientists 'observe' the earth is 6 billion years old, that doesn't necessarily mean it 'is' 6 billion years old. Surely God created 'adult' rocks as he created 'adult' Adam?
I know a lot of people, including Christian scientists, feel uncomfortable with this type of argument, thinking it makes God a 'tricktser'. The other big problem is why God would deliberately make an old looking earth, even complete with fossils. But it is at least one way to quite easily reconcile the apparent 'observation' of the earth being billions of years old with the fact that it 'is' perhaps only 6,000 years old.
I am still largely undecided, and just repeating theories no doubt you have all heard before.
Likewise, even if scientists 'observe' the earth is 6 billion years old, that doesn't necessarily mean it 'is' 6 billion years old. Surely God created 'adult' rocks as he created 'adult' Adam?
Genesis 1:1 states "in the beginning" this does not say "worlds" beginning but "the" beginning.
So Genesis 1:2 before God moved on the "face of the waters" (when the earth was without form and void) and before God spoke in Genesis 1:3 there could be a span of time that did not effect the "Creation Week". I know we serve a awesome God that has all unlimited power and His own Words are Truth…..
Yes. I believe in this way the Adventist creationist position can actually be a little different from many other fundamentalist creationist positions. I believe the GRI of the GC endorses the possibilities of the earth being billions of years old before the act of creation week itself. I note Adventists, including Ellen White, have long endorsed the notion of other worlds being created before ours, which again would open up the possibility of the universe being billions of years old as 'observed' by science.
I guess what we are only debating is when biological life began on this planet alone – not how old the physical earth landmass is, or the age of the universe. I think it is important to put on the table everything both 'sides' of the debate are willing to agree on first. Then we can work through the differences.
I really don't pretend to know or understand all this. I do hope we can create an environment though where we can explore these theories through, which I guess is exactly what we are doing now.
Elaine Nelson, I really have re-read my blog and I don't find anything in this blog about the Sabbath.
Could I ask you to remain on subject and not hi-jack Jack's topic to reintroduce your own pet attacks on the Sabbath? I welcome your thoughts on how the introduction of a doctrine by God in one age, can be changed by God in another age, and how the truth for one time, does not have to remain the truth for all time.
And how those who attempt to keep in concrete every jot and tittle of Biblical truth for previous generations are in danger of doing great harm to God's church in the present, just like the circumcisers were a great danger to Christianity. So Adventism faces the same danger, of being made irrelevant to our time by rigid, traditional interpretations of a scientific question.
Jack,
The "holy day" following God's creative work was previously mentioned by another commenter. That sabbath and circumcision could not ever be separated in Judaism was the entire contention in the early church. Once circumcision had been removed, sabbath was moot; Judaism required circumcision before any of the Law could be applied to non-Jews. Thus, if circumcision was no longer required, the Law was, equally, not required. In the Jewish mind they were never separated. It is only some Christians who wish to include what the early church excluded. Doesn't it make sense that the question should be asked?
I must admit that I had never thought of, nor have hear anyone raise the creation/circumcision/Sabbath conceptual connections. Jack and Elaine are thinking first rate thoughts here! May I suggest that Elaine is certainly not off point in the suggestion about the Sabbath/circumcision connection. Both functioned as a means of identifying who was inside and who was outside the Hebrew community for at least a thousand years. When Pauline Christianity came to be regarded as the "orthodox" part of early Christianity, circumcision as a requirement for membership in the Christian community was eliminated. The Sabbath was not far behind. Now Adventism and other modern Sabbatarian groups simply want to reclaim the position that was held by the 1st Century Jewish Christianity strand which was just one of the various strands of early Christianity. It is regretable that some Adventist Sabbatarians continue to want to characterize the non-Jewish Christianity that became the dominant "orthodox" Christianity by the 3rd Century with pejorative labels and argue that it represents a theologically-corrupted Christianity because it was now now worshiping on Sunday rather than on the Jewish Sabbath. That certainly was the understanding of the 19th century founders of Adventism including EGW. The question is whether their views will continue to be normative within modern Adventism or will we be able to become a little more educated about how Christianity actually evolved over its first 1000 years.
So Ervin are you saying you have come to the same conclusion as Elaine in denying the relevance of the seventh-day Sabbath for the Christian? An interesting position for a Seventh-day Adventist to make (you know, it is the first two words in the name of our denomination). Do you perhaps also rejection a belief in a literal Second Coming of Christ as well (to make the abrogation of our core theological framework complete)?
As to your arguments, the NT had several factions. The Judaizing faction, which required circumcission, was largely wiped out when Jerusalem was destroyed. You are also correct in that there were factions that pushed for the full abrogation of the Sabbath, and they were ultimately sucessful.
But even in Paul's day, there were those were were arguing for total separation for Christianity from its Jewish roots, notably the proto-Gnostics, best demonstrated later by Marcion. Marcion and his proto-Gnostics not only wanted to do away with the Sabbath, they want to do away with the Jewish God altogether. Yet Pauline Christianity did not embrace this abrogation of circumcission context to its Paul.
Thus, the question of how Jewish Christians should be donimated must of the NT. I would suggest that debate still isn't over. That fact that those of the Pauline school (but not necessarily Paul himself) eventually 'won' the battle for Christianity, especially with the conversion of Constantine, is hardly proof of anything.
I guess the important theological question is whether the Sabbath is merely a Jewish ceremony, like circumcission, and thus abrogated at the Cross, or a necessary part of true worship of Yahweh, like not having graven images or not worshipping other gods other than Yahweh Himself, in accordance with the historic creeds of Christianity? I would submit that Pauline Christianity, whilst abrogating circumcission, no more abrogates Sabbath that it does the worship of other gods or creation of graven images.
Stephen, Paul who vigorously opposed the imposition of the external circumcision on Gentile Christians, continues to meet on Sabbaths with Gentiles even when expelled from the Synagogues. He finds and worships with Gentile Lydia on a Sabbath at a riverside place of prayer in Thessalonika. He has nothing to say about Sundayworship.
Jesus who has nothing to say about His circumcision, has plenty to say about proper and improper Sabbath keeping. Sabbath reform, not Sabbath abrogation is a large part of His ministry.
Circumcision is not part of the 10 commandment moral law.
It seems to me that you only equate circumcision with Sabbath keeping when you are anti-Sabbatarian?
Totall agree on all counts.
I understand your point Jack. Good illustration. What is your sense of the Adventist community on this point? I have noticed some people unfamiliar with Science conflate disparate items to confusion.
For example, in Sabbath School last Week a brother, in dicussing Creation, could not see Big Bang Cosmology as a de novo creation event. He couldn't understand it because he had it associated so strongly in his mind with evolution. Do you think we can untangle the association of deep time with evolution and atheism? These false associations seem to limit peoples' ability to think clearly and unincumbered.
Totally agree. I reall fail to understand why Christians would have a problem with the Big Bang. It merely supports the old Christian view of creation ex nihilo. Morever, as discussing with All4Him, Adventists have long believed that God created other worlds before ours (i.e. the universe is not 6,000 years old). We have long recognised the possibility of a gap, so that the plant itself is very old (i.e. only the creation of biological life in creation week is 6,000 years old). Thus, even accepting a YEC view, the universe itself could certainly be billions of years old, given God created trillions and trillions of other Eden's before ours, each with their own Adams and Eves.
Again, I think part of the way to calm some of the hysteria is to set out what YEC and OEC within Adventism do possibly agree on. I think there might be more than people first think!
Darrel as you know we are offered a false choice by our present SDA administrative leadership and their publications, Choose one: Short Term Creation or Godless Evolution.
What you and I are learning is that although IS THE WORLD CREATED is a YES or NO question; HOW DID GOD CREATE IT AND WHEN, is a multiple choice question.
And Darrel, what a wonderful day when you and I and Stephen and even our Thesistic Evolutionists will be asked to write articles explaining in the pages of the Adventist Review to our members the other ways you can be a Creationist beyond the Young Earth Creationist position.
But for now I keep hoping that some how posting these little blogs like notices on the huge Cathedral doors will find its audience in God's Providence. I know only a few comment, I believe more are at least reading them?
Jack,
You find more ways to work creation into a discussion than anyone else I've met! I think this is the first time I've see a discussion about circumcision used as a comparative to the length of creation. You get this week's literary award for creative linkage.
Thank you.
Great! This is exactly what I am talking about! We need to be discussing all these possibilities in an open manner.
I have often wondered if Eden was perfect what was the wilderness outside of Eden, to which Adam was expelled like – imperfect? What type of 'care' did God expect Adam to do for the Garden? Was Adam tasked with extending the Garden outwards to conquor the wilderness, by him and his descendents?
I have even thought about multiple universe (don't joke, it is a favourite theory of athiest scientists such as Dawkins and Hawkings for the creation of the universe). People ask why couldn't God create a perfect universe first? Who says He didn't, called 'heaven', which is a static, illinear universe, with no birth and no death.
The Bible itself attests Adam didn't commit the original, original sin – Lucifer did. Perhaps Adam was created as Lucifer's antidote, but failed! So God had to become the second Adam?
It would certainly fit the notion of sexless created angels, which mankind would be like at the resurrection. It would fit with Ellen White's description of heaven in a black hole (i.e. outside of our universe of time and space). Perhaps when Satan rebelled against the perfect universe, our evolving universe was a Job-like response of God to say, even without my direct intervention in creation beings will still choose to worship me? It would certain be more akin to the views of such theologians of Pierre de Chardin.
The church has built an entire theology around Lucifer and Satan; knowing his origin, his work, even particular actions attributed to him. Yet the idea of Lucifer as satan began with Jerome's Latin Vulgate translated from the Hebrew where the Bible the word helel was rendered s "Lucifer" from Isaiah's metaphorical usage of the Morning Star (helel), and was read by Christians as the fall of the disobedient archangel. (Of intersest: the same word "morning star is used for Christ in Revelation!) It is the planet Venus.
The Christian origin of Lucifer comes from combining two biblical lines, written nine centuries apart, on the surface havning nothint to do with each other (Luke 19:18; Isa 14:12). Church fathers later saw in Isaiah's statement a prefigurement to Jesus' comment in Luke on Satan. Isaiah may have been sarcastically poking fun at the fallen Babylon.
But the true origin of Lucifer in the Christian and especially EGW's writings, were influenced by John Milton's Paradise Lost in which he fleshed out events he felt the Bible had given short shrift (and EGW added her own to his).
There is no Bible account of Lucifer existing prior to creation; nor is there a single mention of Lucifer as representative of Satan until the Hebrew captivity where they were introduced to "dualism":–belief in the continuous battle between the forces of good and evil (doesn't that sound just like the Great Controversy?) Good and evil are disparate concepts; unlike Judaism which gave God the authority for everything, both good and evil (see Job). We may never know how much revision of this sort was donek, but in a short time all evil doings were attributed to Satan (first appearing in Zechariah). This was the beginning of the polarization that was to come: God will be all-good; Satan will be all-evil.
The concept of "Satan rebelling against the universe" is a much later revision of the early story of Creation. The ancient Israelites recognized no single archenemy of God; nor did they need a Satan to dispatch plagues, pestilence, famine, and the heartache; their God of Abraham, a wrathful Lord, worked all this on his own.
How much of Christian theology comes out of the Bible? That is, outside the Bible!
Elaine, apparently most of your (Christian) theology comes from outside the Bible. Satan as the antagonist of Christ is clearly identified in Revelation 12.
As to the Adventist creation of a Sabbath, "Let there be light" implies darkness a priori and set the pattern of evening before morning. We are here discussing the development of planet earth and its environs, not the universe as a whole. The Sabbath became the same Sabbath as that observed by its Creator, the Son of God, for "by Him were all things created. . . and He is before all things, and by Him all things consist," (Col 1:16, 17, et al). He is Lord of the Sabbath, and is our life pattern in all things.
Who dare to alter God's record in order to adjust to fallen man's rationale, even in the face of interpretive "evidence?" And so the rebellion continues among God's professed remnant because a short chronology does not fit with the "science" of the age.
Right. It couldn't rain in Noah's day. And brimstone could not fall from heaven upon Sodom, either. God speaks, and it is done. He has a day when probationary time will be ended also. And many will wake up after the "seven days" outside the ark, only to find they have no oil reserve for their lamps. May God help us to wake up!
Most of Adventist doctrine did not originate in the NT, but revived Judaism for its unique doctrines: sabbath, tithing, investigative judgment, and Daniel's prophecies.
Where are the records of God giving mankind a holy day? God rested from his creation; it was man's first day after his creation without a single command to observe a day. God rested from HIS work. The first command was to be fruitful and multiply and the first mention of sabbath was in Exodus. Even circumcision predates a sabbath by 430 years.
If you look at similar uses of the phrase to be fruitful, multiply and fill the earth, they certainly all seem to involve a 'replenishment' after a prior destruction, as you say. Not just in the Noah's story, but also in the Exodus story (i.e. remember the Children of Israel are replenishing Canaan after the destruction of the Canaanites). I certainly think the notion of creation week in Gen 1 being a 'replenishment' of life, including human life on the planet, one certainly worth exploring.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen%201:28,%20Gen%208:17,%20Gen%209:1,%20Gen%209:7,%20Gen%209:19,%20Gen%2047:27,%20Lev%2026:9,%20Ezek%2036:11&version=NIV
Finally, I am also not comfortable with the 'trickster God' argument either. If you adopt that, you might as well say that we are all living in the Matrix.
Sorry, further to your notion of replenishment and Noah, and my comment about the Garden and the wilderness, I just thought of another parallel. To what extent is the Garden of Eden the 'Ark' equivalent to Noah's, and the wilderness outside the Garden to the flood waters? Similarly, there is the Ark that the Children of Israel also carry in the wilderness which they take with them on the way to replenish Canaan.
A whole series of possibly interesting parallels?
I think Elaine gets second place for the implied idea that the Sabbath leaves a circumcised week!
btw I mean that in a positive way, perhaps unlike William's possible note of negative. Creation, Sabbath, circumcision are very interlinked in Judaism.
There is sooooo much that could be said on this topic/blog, but history suggests to me it is pointless.
Interesting analogy, Jack, a “creative” approach, but I see contextual conflicts. Let’s go back to the “beginning.” God (elohim) saw everything He had made and pronounced it “very (Heb. vehemence) good.” He then set apart one day for “rest.” He desisted from exertion to celebrate the completeness and perfection of the entire design. Only one imperfection existed, and that was the character development of the human pair. The power of choice given all intelligent beings was the one great risk that only supreme Love could incorporate. Either He is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent and changes not (Mal 3:6; Matt 24:35, et al), or He has to adapt Himself to evolutionary processes in fallen man’s mind. The greatest Scientist stated that “evening” and “morning” comprised each creation day, even without a sun or moon until the fourth day. The God-day became the man-day. He “spoke and it was done; He commanded and it stood fast.” And so at Sinai, He said to “remember.”
Enter Jesus’ informing us that humanitarian deeds were in harmony with Sabbath-keeping. “The Sabbath was made for [the sake of] man, and not man for the Sabbath; therefore, the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.” (Mark 2:27, 28, et al). If this day of creation were any more than a 24-hour period, then we have a tremendous problem with John’s being “in the Spirit on the Lord’s day.” And great issues will perplex us when we have to choose which day is Sunday vs. the seventh-day Sabbath. Perhaps some will rather choose to observe the “eighth” day.
Now, the creation setting was without flaw or sin. Come circumcision. An entirely different context. A remedy for separation had been implemented at our parents’ fall. For Abraham, a special covenant was entered into which was to be a sign and symbolism of the coming Messiah. It began with the bisection of animals (lit. “cut off,” Gen 15:10, 18), through which were passed the elements of furnace and flame and the promise of territorial inheritance. Following Abram’s mistake with Hager, the covenant was reinforced by the sign of circumcision. Circumcision was not just a matter of proper hygiene, but a precursor of the prophecy that was later spelled out in Daniel 9:26. That was further demonstrated by the Lord’s call to sacrifice the faith-son of promise. The fulfillment of this prophecy by Jesus’ death negated any further requirement for circumcision.
Thus, the suggestion that we circumcise creation by adhering to a literal 24-hr day during creation week cannot be validated logically when we take in the entire context of perfection as compared with a temporary rite of accommodation to the rebellion problem.
Collin I appreciate the added insight that the ritual of circumcision had a sacrificial component. That as men were asked in a token way to sacrifice their creative powers, so the Creator would have to be sacrificed.
The existence of sexuality is a huge largely ignored dilemma for evolutionists. Why would chance and mutation lead to such a complicated and inefficient yet exquisitely interdependent system as sexual reproduction?
Creationists understand that sexual reproduction is designed into our life systems because it better explains the way goodness and godness works. Life needing other life, love as a guiding principal of conduct, humility in the essential relationships of life, creation as the result of love, courtship and mate selection showing centrality of freedom of choice. The fact of sexual reproduction is a huge creationist evidence if we choose to see it.
But my article was not nearly so deep.
It was more about church politics. It is an analogy that says, what may have been true for the organized people of God in one time and place, can change. God changes not. Religion must. And our understandings of what is true, must change. There is present truth. What Jewish Christians believed to be true about circumcision they held as firmly as you (and Ellen White) may have believed in a 24 hour x 6 day creation chronology.
For the sake of God's purpose in making Christianity the religion of the world, instead of a forgotten Jewish sect, that belief had to be given up by those believers in Jerusalem.
For the sake of God's purpose in making Adventism a world wide religion, instead of a forgotten Christian sect, the belief that it all happened in 144 hours about 6,000 years ago has to become an acceptable option, and not a restriction on membership in Adventism.
Paul who in his early ministry had to fight so vigorously against circumcision as an essential doctrine necessary before you could be a real Christian, was not forbidding circumcision, he was forbidding requiring circumcision of all Christians. I am not asking you to not believe that the world was made in 144 hours, about 6,000 years ago. I am just asking that this become an option, not a requirement for membership in a Sabbath remembering, Jesus second coming anticipating, long age creationist Adventism.
I admit to being naive, but must ask why men were asked to sacrifice their creative power? It had no effect on their procreative abilities, and no other useful effect other than to set apart a particular people. All the later claims that it was for health reasons were never the reasons given in the Bible but were much later explanations by those who felt it necessary to "explain" by health reasons, not discovered until thousands of years later. We should not presume 20th century knowledge on humans 3,000 years ago as God never gave health reasons and man should no presume to know God's mind.
Presuming that "God's purpose in making Christianity the religion of the world" and "making Adventism a world wide religion" is a concept unsupported by the Bible. There is no evidence that God made either Christianity or Adventism: Jesus died a Jew and Christianity was not even an idea; the apostles developed it on the life of Christ following his resurrection in an effort to understand the meaning of this event. If anyone should be given credit it is the apostles, and particularly Paul, who took the message to the Gentiles which had largely been rejected by the Jews and from the first century on, Christianity was solely a religion of the Gentiles. Jewish-Christians fade from history after the temple's destruction.
By eliminating the required circumcision for Gentiles, it set in place abrogation of the Jewish Law, including sabbath, which mandated circumcision for all non-Jews who converted to Judaism before they were allowed into the Jewish community and must obey the special feasts and festivals, beginning with sabbath (Lev. 23).
Christianity was never simply adding a Messiah to Judaism, but a new belief system that was devoid of all the laws that encumbered the Jews. In Christ, we are made free–and Paul's letters declare that repeatedly. Only by returning to the OT for doctrines does religion essentially reject that Christian message: there is no longer a Law to guide us: Jesus has replaced the Law. How much plainer could it be said? But it was so revolutionary, Paul became repetitious on that message.
"Jesus has replaced the Law. How much plainer could it be said?"
Not says the historical creeds of Christianity, including those of Roman Catholics, Anglicans and Presbytereans, who make clear that the OT is not at odds with the NT, and that whilst Christians are not bound by Jewish ceremonies which were shadows pointing to Jesus, or civil-sundry laws for the governing fot theocratic Israel, but where the moral law as summarised in the Ten Commandments and 2 Great Commands as forever binding.
Not says Jesus makes clear in Matt 5:17-18, saying the Law will not pass away, and dammed be anyone who teaches this is so.
Not says Paul in Rom 7:7, saying the Law helps point out sin leading to repentence, and specifically says the Law is not made void through faith in Rom 3:31.
Not says James in 2:8, who refers to the Royal Law, meaning the ten commandments.
Not says the Council fo Apostles and Elders in Acts 15:20 who made clear that whilst Gentile believers are not bound by Jewish ceremonies of circumcission, they are required to adhere to principles relating to sexual conduct, and even 'food laws' relating to blood and idols. Moreover, given the Council did explictly mention the reading of Moses in synagogues on the Sabbath in Acts 15:21, there was certainly opportunity for the Council to say the Sabbath is no longer required either, yet the Council is silent on Sabbath-keeping!
The only person in the first couple of centuries CE who thought Jesus had replaced the law were the proto-Gnostics, such as Marcion, and others who embraced antinomianism. Although the Apostles disagreed on how Jewish Christians should be, from conservative James to moderate Peter to liberal Paul, and their theology certainly evolved, they all seem to be united in their condemnation of antinomianism.
Therefore, it certainly is't 'plain' that Jesus replaced the Law.
Rather than refuting my statement that Jesus replaced the Law, which is straight from Paul's letter, you introduce Catholics, Anglicans, and Presbyterians. These were not part of the first century church, and the latter two originated many centuries later. What do they have to do with my quotation from Paul?
Yes, Jesus said not one jot or tittle will be changed until all is fulfilled. When Jesus died on the cross he said "It is fulfilled." He fulfilled all the obligations of the Law, which is why Paul explains that Christ has replaced the Law, which is better than a written letter.
The food laws were greatly amended as is clearly seen when comparing the Levitical food laws with only the elimination of food offered to idols, strangled, and fornication. That is a greatly simplifed, changed and modified version of the Jewish Law in the Torah.
And yes, Moses was read in the synagogues each sabbath. Does reading the Law imply that the Gentiles were taught to observe all the Jewish Law? There was ample opportunity for the apostles to instruct the pagan Gentiles, now new Christians, of the importance of observing a holy day with all the many prohibitions (under pain of death) but where is it found in the NT? It is ALL assumptions, without a single supporting text!
It really doesn't matter who "thought" about Jesus replacing the Law, there is no record of the Gentiles observing a holy day: going to the synagoguge, which functioned as the village meeting place for all sorts of events, did not mean they were observing sabbath as a holy day. If you attend a Catholic mass, does that make you a Catholic?
Yes, we must recognize that Christianity was in an evolutionary stage for the first 300 years until they forged the Nicean Creed. But it has always been evolving, and still is today.
If you say that it isn't plain that Jesus replaced the Law, please explain the meaning of his death, and all of Paul's explanation of the meaning of Christ vs. the Law. He spent many chapters in many letters trying to clarify how Christianity is different from Judaism. In Romans 7 he makes an analogy of the Law as marriage, with a husband who dies and that the wife is no longer bound by marriage; and that we were made to die to the Law in order that we might be joined to Christ. We have been released from the Law,so that we may serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter. Christ has set us free from the Law.
Why should we return to the Law when Christ replaced the Law? Perhaps you can explain the meaning of this: Although the Apostles disagreed on how Jewish Christians should be, from conservative James to moderate Peter to liberal Paul, and their theology certainly evolved, they all seem to be united in their condemnation of antinomianism. With all the writing of Paul, how can it be said that he upheld the Law, or that Jesus did not replace the Law?
Again, you have the onus all backwards. The onus is on you to say than an integral part of the worship of God, as much a part of the Decalogue as worshiping 1 god, not having idols and not blaspheming, is somehow done away with. I admit there is no explicit text affirming weekly Sabbath-keeping; however, there is no explicit text abrogating it either!
The reason why the NT hardly mentions the weekly Sabbath is for a simple reason – it wasn't an issue. It was not real barrier to Gentile conversion, as evidenced by the God-fearers who already attended Synagogues. Compare that to circumcission, which for obvious reason was a lit bit of a barrier to most Gentile men, who were not keen to have their member's sliced.
Re food laws, it is more complicated that you think. The Pharisees promoted some food laws not even food in the Torah, such as ritual handwashing and mixing of meet with milk etc. The Sadducees (and their modern day equivalents the Karaite Jews) do distinguish clean and unclean meats, but don't believe in other Kosher food laws. However, as the SDA publication Questions on Doctrine makes clear, Adventists don't uphold the dietry laws as a Jewish ceremonial practice, but merely as a practical matter of health. I admit most Adventists misunderstand this, thinking it a sin, which it isn't.
Part of the problem with the way you are quoting Paul is that he uses the word Law ('nomos') in different instances to mean different things. In Romans nomos refers to the Pentateuch
(Rom 3:21), the entire OT (Rom 3:19), a principle (Rom 7:23), the Decalogue (Rom 7:7) and legalism (Gal 3:2). It is important to compare ‘oranges to oranges’.
I agree about Jesus fulfilling the Law. However, Christ has not so much replaced as transformed the Law – a slight but important difference. The OT itself in Jer 31 prophesied that the Law would be written on our hearts. The question is which Law, and is the Sabbath, along with monotheism, a part of what is written on our hearts?
As to your final point, how do I say Christ did not replace the Law. Simple, because although Paul is inconsistent and confusing in his use of the term nomos, he is at least clear in Rom 3:30-31, and the interaction between circumcission and the Law, the very topic being discussed here:
"since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law."
And the reason I mentioned these other Churches, is because you and Ervin made the suggestion that Adventists are somehow kooky by trying to see Christianity in a 1st-Century context rather than the way it eventually involved by the 3rd Century, when the Pauline faction was ulitmately sucessful in winning the race towards orthodoxy.
By point is that actually, the SDA Church is in fact applying the same theological framework of those 'orthodox' Christian groups, who did not see Christ as doing away with the entire Law, as you claim, but rather see a division of the Law between Moral (ten commandments, forever binding), ceremonial (mere shadows pointing to Christ, abrogated) and civil-sundry laws (for theocratic Israel, fulfilled in Christ the true king and the Church, the new spiritual Israel).
Then if you go from the 3rd Century back to the 1st Century CE, as I said, Paul hardly endorsed the proto-Gnostic form of antimonianism that you seem to be promoting. Nay, he actively fought against it! In fact, when Marcion and his fellow proto-Gnostics made the same sort of arguments you did, it was the very major heresy the 'proto-orthodox' Christians fought, and eventually led to the creation of the NT cannon!
"Jewish-Christians fade from history after the temple's destruction."
I don't think Adventists are trying to be 'Jews' if that is what you mean. Moreover, even the Jews of today are not the Jews of the NT period. The Jews of today are merely the successors of the Pharisaic faction of proto-Judaism, who won the hearts and minds of the Jewish people (as Christians did for Gentiles) when the Temple was destroyed.
In fact, many NT scholars refuse to use the term 'Jew' when refering to the NT period because of this misconception. They instead use terms like Judean and Israelite.
Likewise, many NT scholars refuse to use the term 'Christian' when refering to the NT period. Instead they use terms like Jesus Believers.
The NT period was a time of theological flux, both within Judaism and Christianity. How 'Jewish' people should be wasn't just a question still in the air for Christians, it was still up in the air for Jews as well. For example, Sadducees didn't merely in many of the extra-Torah regulations, such as ritual washing of hands, as the Pharisees did.
There is certainly nothing 'plain' in this question.
When I wrote "that Jewish-Christians fade from history…." I was not referring to Adventists but to the Jews–which is, after all, what I wrote, with no allusions to Adventism.
As I clearly wrote, Jewish-Christians are not recorded in all the histories of the church after 100 A.D. The Gentile Christians were the Christians from which we descended (in faith). If you prefer "Jesus Believers" it still means Christians, of which all were non-Jews after that first century.
You appear to have chosen an interpretation that was unrelated to what I wrote because you choose to use different terms, but the meaning is the same.
Sorry, not sure what your point was then?
"By eliminating the required circumcision for Gentiles, it set in place abrogation of the Jewish Law, including sabbath"
Sorry no it didn't – show us the proof?
Moreover, what do you mean by the 'Jewish Law'?
The only people who would agree with this analysis in the first few centuries of Christianity were the proto-Gnostics of Marcion and fellows who others who embraced antinomianism. Although the Apostles disagreed on how Jewish Christians should be, from conservative James to moderate Peter to liberal Paul, and their theology certainly evolved, they all seem to be united in their condemnation of antinomianism.
The historic creeds of 'orthodox' Pauline Christianity certainly don't support this view.
How about this? Circumcision was ordained by God for apparently a spiritual identification purpose; but it had/has hygienic benefits that are universally applicable because God understands what He he did and knows what He’s doing.
Something similar can also be said of the Sabbath’s place in the creation narrative. It was ordained for spiritual identification purposes but had/has memorial benefits that are universally applicable because God understands what He did in six days and knows that forgetting (not remembering) the Sabbath results in unbelief.
The reason for the Sabbath is to remember what God claims to have done.
Is there any other reason for it?
Once we no longer believe what God claims to have done, and/or how He claims to have done it, then the Sabbath becomes, at best, an anachronistic irrelevance.
On another note mentioned above, I personally do not see how the Big Bang theory contradicts the Bible in any way. Clearly, I am not an astrophysicist, and there may well be aspects of it that do; but from what I understand of it, they don’t seem to conflict.
Jack,
Earlier you said "The existence of sexuality is a huge largely ignored dilemma for evolutionists."
I wonder if you could offer some thoughts on the following questions that can flow from your point?
1. The origin and function of Syncytin, which appears to be part of the 8% of the human genome having retroviral origins.
2. The implications on answer to questoin one, if still active viral sequences in Syncytin, as suggested by some recent studies, are implicated in Multiple Sclerosis.
3. The genitalia and reproduction system of the female Spotted Hyena, plus the implications and explanations of the Alpha Female giving her unborn's a massive androgenous hormone boost before birth, particularly in light of a "garden of Eden, zero competition environment".
4. You state: "Why would chance and mutation lead to such a complicated and inefficient yet exquisitely interdependent system as sexual reproduction?" Bold supplied.
4.1 Are you using "lead to" in the sense of "completed process"? It would seem that you are. Yet in evolutionary thought, this is not the case. Given that it is NOT a completed process, your claim that it is "complicated and inefficient" says nothing about the truth or error of the theory. It simply says it has been the most functionally suitable to date for the survival of your subject.
5. If "complicated and inefficient" can be used as a negative, against a theory which by its very defiinition does NOT seek or claim perfection, can we apply those terms in similar vein to creation, which by its very definition DOES expect and claim perfection, (at least in original form), and ask: Are there more efficient, less complicated, ways to design the human system? The Hyena? Other parts of the human body? The Recurrent laryngeal nerve in a girrafe? etc etc.
Sorry I don't know about Syncitin. I'll add this to my list of things to learn about then think about.
But an intelligent designer can apply his/her designs to multiple applications so the repeated use of functional elements across many otherwise unrelated kinds of life is evidence to me of design, and against random purposeless unguided evolution. That chimps and I share many design elements, along with carots and I suggests there is a plot in life! Not that it just all happened by itself by some miracle of concurrent evolution.
An earlier generation of Adventist scientists were disheartened by the idea that we not only had DNA but also "junk" DNA, which seemed to be against intelligence. But guess what it was our ignorance of the function that was "junk" not the DNA which clearly is part of and essential for life.
I am not competent to argue the science with you. I am trying to place the science in a context of belief. And I am trying to pursuade my church to let those who are competent to do so, without proscribing their attempt to synthesize Adventism with science. What the science teachers at La Sierra were trying to do, seems to me to be the work of every Adventist scientist. Synthesize the truths of nature with the truths of revelation.
Finally at least as an Adventist creationist, my view of life fully includes disease, mutation, predation, illness, suffering, and deformity. As a long term creationist I see this as the result not of Eve and Adam's sin, but as the universal Great Controversy between Christ and Satan. And the creation of life on earth was in the context of that Controversy from creation day one through six. So I find the scars of that ongoing conflict recorded in what I see in nature.
I agree with the young earth creationists who say that Satan changed everything. I just don't think that started after Adam's fall, but long before, from the planning of earth, according to my Adventism.
I find Hyena's and parasites, and destructive diseases like HIV and syphillus evidence that two different principles of life are in competition. Science tells me what is happening, my Adventism can tell me why.
To me there are more satisfying answers than random mutations and natural selection.
Jack
Hi Jack, I agree with you completely. In fact a recent paper in Nature reports the results of the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) project, which has detected evidence of function for the "vast majority" of the human genome. The paper finds an "unprecedented number of functional elements," where "a surprisingly large amount of the human genome" appears functional. Based upon current knowledge, the paper concludes that “at least 80% of the human genome is now known to be functional.” The non-protein coding (junk) DNA is not junk but highly tuned regulatory computer code orchestrating the larger system. The Evolutionary view that this was ‘junk’ has stymied science for 50 years. But now the new field of 'epigeneics' will bring new discoveries. Once we pull the dead hand of Darwin completely off Science our minds will be free to see even newer discoveries.
It's nonsense to compare circumcision with creationism. There is no connection whatever.
Yes, Lance. But I wasn't comparing circumcision with creationism. I was comparing the requirement to be circumcised as a condition of church membership, with the a requirement of accepting a short chronology for the creation of life on earth as a condition of church membership.
I am not opposing circumcision. I am not opposing short term creationism. I am suggesting, however, that attempting to require either one as condition of Adventist membership is worse than nonsense.
It is harmful to God's purposes for our church. That is the connection.
Anything can be "discovered" in the Bible by very imaginative minds. This is how the Great Controversy paradigm has invaded the entire Adventist raison de etre and colors all interpretations of events.
Don't you mean that is how the Great Controversy paradigm invaded the mind of John the Revelator? Let's be honest about the history of religion. The pre-Exile Jews certainly didn't seem to believe in a Great Controversy motif, as they didn't even believe in a Satan-like figure, or really in demons etc. By the time of the early NT, probably under the influence of Zoastrianism, many of these beliefs had entered the Jewish theological lexicon.
Of course, if you believe the Bible is a progressive revelation about God through time, recognizing theology should evolve and not be stagnant, that Christians do and rightly should view God through Jesus in a very different way to say Jews, then there is no problem with that at all. In fact, one soon recognizes that the Jewish idea of God has certainly evolved over time, and the modern Jew today would be very different from the ancient Israelite of David’s court.
I think you are being a little disingenuous in always suggesting Adventists are somehow outside the theological framework of historical Christianity. Sure, we might apply that framework differently, but often we do in fact share an underlying approach. We end up with a different answer, but we often ask very similar questions.
We didn’t simply make things up in the 19th Century, as you often suggest. Rather, often are ideas have a very long tradition.
For example, you will note that Billy Graham of all people wrote a whole Great Controversy-style book Till Armageddon, which is very similar to Adventist approaches to theodicy. Thus, the Great Controversy motif is hardly peculiar to Adventism.
http://www.amazon.com/Till-Armageddon-Billy-Graham/dp/0849901952/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1347240398&sr=8-1&keywords=till+armageddon
Jack,
OK. I'll say no more in response that than to gently remind you of your own statement:
"..the length of the geologic history of this Created earth, short time or long time, can be an important issue, but it should be a scientific question, not a church membership question." bold supplied
I totally agree with you: The length of the geologic history of this…earth should be a scientific question. I would only insert the word "created" after allowing science, inform me about all other questions related to the geologic length of time. Those questions also are NOT church membership questions. They are no less questions of science than the how long question.
Unfortunately, you, I, and many others here know that those questions have answers that are just as obvious as answers to the "how old" question, BUT the answers impinge on doctrines that are non negotiable. So, the solution is to do what you are doing: Split the issues into those you allow science to inform you about, and those you don't, can't or won't.
Cheers
Not sure if you are saying that accepting OEC impinges on doctrines that are non-negotiable to the current SDA theological framework? I don't think so – at least that is my reading of all 28 FBs.
As discussed, it would be good if the whole issue could be broken down, as you perhaps suggest. I think there is a lot of misinformation and hysteria. Even between YEC and OEC, I think there is much more that they can agree on that many might think, including: YEC (at least within Adventism) do seem willing to accept the universe is billions of years old or more and that the earth (i.e. the geology) is billions of years old. The only thing that YEC insist on is that biological life on earth, but again not elsewhere in the universe, was created in 6 x 24 hour days.
Stephen,
First let me make a distinction:
OEC (Old Earth Creation/ism) is not the same as OEEL (Old Earth Evolved Life)
OEC is pretty much what Jack, Darell etc argue for, fairly much on the basis of ID. Unfortunately, this position is still light years away from traditional Creation and associated Theism. Neither of these gentlemen have put up a good argument showing how they move from ID to traditional Christian Theism. In fact, I don't recall any case being put. They rest on the assumption that if they prove ID they prove Creation and Theism SDA Style. NOT.
I AM suggesting that EVEN this position impinges on current SDA theological positions.
They need to, on behalf of ID:
1. Demonstrate how that supports a theology of an interventionist God. Such a God is essential for Calvary, Second coming. Miracles etc.
2. Demonstrate how that supports Omnipotence, Omnipresence and Omniscience. (on two counts, that of why progression in design; and that of why a Great Controversy Theme as a justification for the "bloody" journey life appears to have undergone.
3. Demonstrate why any point in the ID journey is the last. ie. End times theology. How and why a second coming etc.
Now, you and I know they read the Bible back into the picture and presto: Clear as …well MUD.
One cannot first use ID to prove an Intelligence, which then proves the Bible, which then interpolates/inserts all the fine details which were totally absent, bar imagination, from the scenario which first proved the Bible!
OEEL, at first call, is neither atheistic, theistic nor agnostic. It simply approaches the questions from a scientific postion and reaches the conclusion/s from that method. Only then can, and should one ask: Do we see a god in this? Do we see ID? Do we in fact see the traditional Creative God of Christianity? What do we see?
As I have noted before: It is my opinion that our doctrines are significanly challenged by even ID, let alone by OEEL, and the apparent absence of an interventionist God to say the least.
On top of this from a historical analysis perspective much of the claims of Christianity and the Bible have their own personal battles to resolve. There is trouble on two fronts.
1. Demonstrate how that supports a theology of an interventionist God. Such a God is essential for Calvary, Second coming. Miracles etc.
Chris, you know a lot more about these fine distinctions of terminology than me. However, I always understood, reading people from John Haught to Lennox to Pierre de Chardin, that God is not interventionist in a magical sort of way but hardly the absent clock maker either. The life of Jesus shows this.
Jesus was very interventionist in the sense God became a man, interacted with people, and died for every human being. We was certainly interventionist with his miracles etc.
But He was pretty non-interventionist as well. Jesus didn't lead any armies, He did raise a temporal kingdom, He didn't really do all that much. His miracles were pretty limited in numbers (by world standards). Rather, He taught 12 and 70 followers and it was this small group of followers who changed the world – not Him directly.
The OT also attests to this in a number of places. Gideon complained that God hadn’t sent any miracles, and was not doing enough to save His people, and the angel effectively replied – you Gideon are the miracle! God is indirect, but He is still very interventionist in speaking through His Holy spirit into our hearts.
2. Demonstrate how that supports Omnipotence, Omnipresence and Omniscience. (on two counts, that of why progression in design; and that of why a Great Controversy Theme as a justification for the "bloody" journey life appears to have undergone.
That is about the oldest question in the Book. I have a number of personal theories how, IF evolution is true, it fits into the Great Controversy. The main point though, is that instead of seeing the Great Controversy as just an earth-centred conflict a few thousand years old, evolution forces us to see it as a galactic, or universe-wide conflict, billions of years old.
Rather than destroy the notion of the Great Controversy, evolution actually enhances it! For example, Adventists (and other Christians before us) have long emphasised that Adam did not commit the original-original sin. Rather, that was Lucifer, and we have always taught that this occurred before the creation of the world. Sin already existed on earth before Adam took the fruit, as evidenced in the serpent and as evidenced in the wilderness that existed outside of the Garden.
A modern attempt to link a Great Controversy with evolution is best done by Michael Lloyd in his article ‘Are Animals Fallen’, in the book ‘Animals on the Agenda’. Michael Lloyd is no Adventist but an Anglican, and he makes this very Adventist-like link.
3. Demonstrate why any point in the ID journey is the last. ie. End times theology. How and why a second coming etc.
Not sure if you have read say Pierre de Chardin (and his main modern fan John Haught), with concepts such as the Omega Point? They argue that evolution results in a more eschatologically focused theology, not a less!
Curiously, they also adopt a very Adventist-like position re the importance of rejecting the fallacy of some separate ethereal spirit-world outside of the physical. Thus, they reject the Platonic notion of the doctrine of the immortal soul, noting biblical eschatology is about a physical resurrection.
And what do you mean by "ID" exactly? It is one thing to say a God-like power had some level of involvement in the creation of the laws of physics that allowed life to evolve in the universe, or to say God 'pushed' evolution along at different critical stages (i.e. the so-called fiat view of the days of Creation), compared with how many people might view "ID" to in effect support YEC.
Have you ever thought that God did create a perfect universe, called 'heaven', which was full of static, sexless beings. But that this universe fell with the charge that beings only worshipped God because they were made to worship Him?
And do you ever think that in order to meet these charges, God allowed another universe to simply evolve, on the understanding that in this universe beings would evolve to love and worship God as 'good'? And as to the enormous suffering required for God to prove this point, what would be the appropriate punishment? Perhaps God himself taking a form of a human, that is capable of suffering the most, not just on a biological level but on an emotional or intellectual level (as humans graps their own mortality)?
There are so many interesting layers, theories and questions to all this. I am just illustrating that evolution doesn't kill theology, nor does it kill Adventism, nor does it even kill the Great Controversy theme. If we accept evolution, we don't inevitably need to accept your very distant 'watch-maker' view of God. God can still be very real and very personal.
And I should just say, I am just putting some of these theories out there. There are other theories about 'World Souls'; or about how in Process Theology God Himself is evolving, and that our own experiences are 'uploading' into God as if He were a giant internet (very much like de Chardin's noonsphere); or that the 'clay' that Adam was created out of was in effect the previous DNA matter of proto-humans; or that the Garden story is a reference to the neolithic revolution; or that Adam was the first real 'modern' human; or that Adam was the first prophet (i.e. a being that could understand the concept of One God) etc etc.
Evolution doesn't result in less speculation about God, theodicy and creation – but more speculation.
Stephen,
I'll re read your points again, but an interim comment. I think your first point above depends on the Bible to stand. I really asked the question from the science end of things.
What I mean by ID is pretty much what Darrel and co trot out. Vague. An intelligent designer, but don't ask for fine details. Just assume it fits the creation story, but add an old earth to keep some science happy.
Got to run, back later.
( Dear Readers, I am sorry for a long reply, like the one below and have a small technical suggestion for those like me who are not fully geeks, to make.
If you are Using Internet Explorer as your browser ( I have IE8) in the bottom right hand corner of my browser I have a small box that has a small icon of a magnifying glass with a plus sign in it. If you click here you can increase type size from 100% to 125% or 150% and it makes reading longer and more detailed blogs much easier to do. This only applies to those of us over 45 who suffer from Presbyopia!
I am sure other browsers have this ability too, and encourage you to use this feature to make these blogs easier and more enjoyable to read….. (Although making big nonsense does not change it into wisdom of course! ) Jack.
Correction of Hugh Ross website, mentioned below.
http://www.reasons.org/
Great Resource for finding concordance between science and scripture or as Adventists were taught, Nature and Revelation, the two books of God.
Chris let attempt to quickly answer the confusion.
You say:
“1. Demonstrate how that supports a theology of an interventionist God. Such a God is essential for Calvary, Second coming. Miracles etc.”
1.a As I have mentioned, Intelligent Design Science by definition demonstrates an “interventionist” Designer, but not specific theological points such as the Cross and Second Coming of Christ. Biology does not inform these views. Are you really asking, given that there is God, how do we know God has spoke in Scripture? This is not a biochemical question! It’s a good question, but you know Genetics is not going to address it.
“2. Demonstrate how ID supports Omnipotence, Omnipresence and Omniscience.”. Here the Omni, Omni, Omni comes from theology, and the potence, presence comes from the ‘science.’.
“(on two counts, that of why progression in design; and that of why a Great Controversy Theme as a justification for the “bloody” journey life appears to have undergone.”. Ultimate questions such as “why” are not answered in Science.
“3. Demonstrate why any point in the ID journey is the last. ie. End times theology. How and why a second coming etc.” Answered above (1.a)
“One cannot first use ID to prove an Intelligence, which then proves the Bible, . . . .”. Chris, where did you get the idea that ID proves the Bible?
Darrel,
OK. So you don't use ID to prove the Bible or claims it makes. Glad to hear that!
As for biology not aswering those questions: Then what does? If you say the Bible, you then have a major task of demonstrating why the Bible, not some other book, etc. We've been there. NO one has answered my points on that either.
As for the "potence' coming from science. mmm The more "potence" you claim science can demonstrate, the more trouble you then have excusing God for taking so bloody long about it all. I don't mean that lightly either.
Perhaps I could reverse the points. Demonstrate how those points CAN fit into even an OEC, let alone an OEEL.
" God is not interventionist in a magical sort of way but hardly the absent clock maker either. The life of Jesus shows this."
Humans, then are deciding what kind of a god he is? Either-or? And all about the universe, information that no explorations have yet discovered.
"God did create a perfect universe, called 'heaven', which was full of static, sexless beings. But that this universe fell with the charge that beings only worshipped God because they were made to worship Him?"
You should really get in touch with NASA and inform them that you have information of populated planets, sexless, but worshiping God. The scientists have been attempting to find interterrestial life for many years, but this is phenomenal. Of course, they might not be too excited about finding sexless beings who, nevertheless are worshiping a god who created them this way.
That God would create beings who were made to worship him?
What futuristic books have you been reading that led to this? And you know who lives in heaven now? Do you also know where it is located in space? Can we be sure you are not an interterrestial alien spy? 😉
We don't even know that we are not immortal. How could it be proved? No one knows what's on the "other side."
I suggest you watch Star Trek of course. Fringe is also quite good, with lots about multiple universes.
And read the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, who talks all about multiple universes.
As for sexless beings, I recall Jesus had something to say about that.
My point is until a few centuries ago, they thought the world was flat, that 'heaven' was the water above the sealed dome above and sheol the water beneath our feet. The Great Controversy theme, which is very much in the Bible, despite your mocking, was still a very limited concept driven by an earth-centred view.
We now know better. Such views about 'heaven' and 'earth' need to be modified to the extent we now know there is a whole universe out there billions of hears old.
" God is not interventionist in a magical sort of way but hardly the absent clock maker either. The life of Jesus shows this."
Humans, then are deciding what kind of a god he is? Either-or? And all about the universe, information that no explorations have yet discovered.
"God did create a perfect universe, called 'heaven', which was full of static, sexless beings. But that this universe fell with the charge that beings only worshipped God because they were made to worship Him?"
You should really get in touch with NASA and inform them that you have information of populated planets, sexless, but worshiping God. The scientists have been attempting to find interterrestial life for many years, but this is phenomenal. Of course, they might not be too excited about finding sexless beings who, nevertheless are worshiping a god who created them this way.
That God would create beings who were made to worship him?
What futuristic books have you been reading that led to this? And you know who lives in heaven now? Do you also know where it is located in space? Can we be sure you are not an interterrestial alien spy? 😉
We don't even know that we are not immortal. How could it be proved? No one knows what's on the "other side."
Who said I was talking about planets? My whole point is we don't know what 'heaven' is exactly, and we don't know what 'angels' are either? I think many of us do view heaven as some sort of other planet. But who says? If there is a heaven, who says it isn't a completly different universe entirely?
I know you are mocking me for concepts that some very much like science fiction. Yet these concepts, including multiple universes, are taken very seriously by scientists, including Richard Dawkins and Steven Hawkings. In fact, I think some of these scientists do already reside at NASA.
I am not being dogmatic – just raising some interesting theories. The overall purpose being that accepting evolution doesn't necessarily have to mean the acceptance of no God, or merely a distant, non-interventionist God either. Anyone who says we have to accept atheism or a distant God if we accept evolution, as Dawkins claims, is themselves the fundamentalist.
Well, my answer Chris is that only the Bible contains
Specific Prophecy that can be falsified by investigation
in history. This does not mean everything in the Bible is
on that level, but Prophecy does provided a line of
investigation for the scientific temperament.
My person investigation of Prophecy has satisfied
my that God has spoken and intervened in history.
On a subjective note, I know God has done so
in my personal history.
CB25, (?Chris),
ID (Intelligent Design) demands an interventionist Creator, that is the whole point. It challenges random mutation and natural selection as an adequate explanation of everything we know about life, except the mutation, variations and adaptations of what has already been created and designed.
It is true that ID does NOT try to explain the character of that designer. It works on an agnostic supposition: there had to be an intelligent designer, we leave others to identify that power. However many ID proponents (but not all, as there are atheists and agnostics who believe in ID) personally are comfortale with the character of the Creator revealed in the Old and New Testament.
Adventist conservatives or fundamentalists like our present GC leadership are uncomfortale with that, and like Chris (strange bedfellows?) feel anything except Biblical literalism destroys our religion.
Adventists like me in fact have found keys in our theology that are more satisfying and encouraging in explaining theodocity (I think that's the word for the problem of evil?) than other Christian schools of thought like Calvanism which says God created it all disease and death and deformity, like the ancient Jews did before progressive revelation introduced Lucifer/Satan (perhaps through Zoroaster who I suspect may have been influenced by a Babylonian wise man called Belteshazzar/Daniel…. but I'm wandering here.)
Back to the main point.
Chris, accepting the theological speculations of none theologians like most evolutionary scientists (Darwin, Dawkins,come to mind) is as risky as accepting the scientific speculations of mine! Fraught with danger.
(Their grasp of theology is at best immature and very selective for their own agendas, as mine likely is I admit.) Adventists are under no obligation to accept their oft repeated claim that if evolution (and in the past they meant neo-Darwinian evolution, although the scientific understanding of evolution itself is obviously evolving rather rapidly).is true then the Bible is false. This is only true of a certain kind of literalistic inerrantist Biblicism which is NOT an Adventist fundamental belief.
Some Bible Believers think a God designed Darwinian evolution is compatible with the Creator revealed in their Bibles. "Things can evolve, because God designed them to do so. Evolution is how God creates." They are evolutionists, but don't believe Evolution is random or chance alone.
Some of us don't agree with that, but do feel comfortable with the scientific facts but not the naturalistism (no God necessary) interpretation of the facts. For example two brothers with common genetics, similar education and skills and the same science come to different conclusions, the Hitchen boys. Christopher was a powerful support of atheism till his recent death. Peter his brother was also an atheist, but is now a quieter and less well known, but fully convinced orthodox Christian. His explanation is a very useful book called "The Rage against God" .
Science has not changed, but Peter's conclusions about the meaning of science has changed. And I suspect his criticism of what he once thought was science, but turned out to be speculation and dogma, is also now keener.
So a personal question, CB25, have you read and seriously considered these books by scientists who are believers? I find the theistic evolutionists unconvincing, such as Francis Collins and John Polkinghorn, but have read them and keep the door open to their claim to find a synthesis of evolution with revelation possible.
Because of that I have found much more intellectually satisfying the critiques of Theistic Evolution edited by
Jay W. Richards, PhD, in 2010 called "God and Evolution – Protestants, Catholics and Jews Explore Darwin’s Challenge to Faith" best explains to me why I don't find neo-Darwinian evolution compatible with Biblical faith..
There is a large body of scientists who have come to the same conclusion. Among the best:
John C Lennox. "God and Stephen Hawking" is a sparse but elegant correction of Hawking's "The Grand Design". His ""God's Undertaker" is similar to the Ditchins crowd (sorry but I love that acronmy for Dawking, Hitchins, and Harris). But his "Seven Days that Divide the World" is equally a spiritually and intellectually robust alternative to Biblical Literalism. I wish every Adventist could read this.
Astronomer and Calvanist Pastor Hugh Ross, PhD, takes a scriptural inerrantist position, but is fully accepting of modern science. While I think Adventism offers many insights not available to John Calvin, his synthesis of science and the Bible is bracing and very educational. If you are serious about trying to understand the revelations of science and the revelations of scripture, his large number of books available from Reasons to Believe.com are a wonderful resource. If you have a chance to hear him speak in person, and watch his question and answer periods he is equally adept at talking to atheists and fundamentalists and should be recognized as a prophet of God for our generation. The concordance of Scripture with Science is well explained from a universe that had a beginning, and will have an end with "In the beginning…" to "a New Heaven and a New Earth" from our Bibles.
I hope CB25 has at least taken ID proponents seriously, and not swallowed the premature and inadequate dismissal of Intelligent Design by so many Darwinists and some ill informed Christians. Me thinketh they do protest too much!
Jack
I loved Lennox's book the best out of the bunch. It is the sort of book you could give an average, Bible-believing Christian. It is short and it goes straight to the biblical problems often raised re evolution. Probably the opposite extreme is Pierre de Chardin's Phenominan of Man, which almost requires a PhD is philosophy and another PhD in science just to understand.
I actually find many Catholic thesitic evolution books more akin to our Adventist mindset because of their strong belief also in free will. I really don't like the Calvinistic notion of death being God's deliberate choice, as if it were like 'best of all possible worlds' theodicy. The Great Controversy theme does appear to be raised in many of these evolutionary theologians, many of which are extremely eschatology focused. RC theologian John Haught thinks the whole Genesis account is primarily an eschatological account.
Jack,
🙂 That was a detailed tome, but I'll try to pick up a few points.
ID demands an interventionist Creator,…It challenges random mutation and natural selection as an adequate explanation of everything we know about life, except the mutation, variations and adaptations of what has already been created and designed." mmm. except the mutation, variations and adaptations already designed. I wonder which is which?
"ID does NOT try to explain the character of that designer. …we leave others to identify that power. However many ID proponents… personally are comfortale with the character of the Creator revealed in the Old and New Testament." Yes, that was the point I was making that Stephen picked me up on.
"Chris, accepting the theological speculations of non theologians like most evolutionary scientists …s as risky as accepting the scientific speculations of mine! Fraught with danger. " Absolutely agreed. That is why I DON'T.
"Adventists are under no obligation to accept their oft repeated claim that if evolution …is true then the Bible is false. This is only true of a certain kind of literalistic inerrantist Biblicism which is NOT an Adventist fundamental belief. " mmm In part I agree. Only what is shown by a posteriori analysis of evidence to be false "within" the Bible or its "claims" need be affected by evolution if it is/were true.
"Some Bible Believers think a God designed Darwinian evolution is compatible with the Creator revealed in their Bibles. "Things can evolve, because God designed them to do so. Evolution is how God creates." They are evolutionists, but don't believe Evolution is random or chance alone." Yes, a more flexible use of the term evolution. I would suggest it is perhaps a more intellectually honest twist to ID, in that it does not assume some of the more Biblical proportions of Theism that a good number of ID's do.
"…personal question,…have you read and seriously considered these books by scientists who are believers? I find the theistic evolutionists unconvincing, such as Francis Collins and John Polkinghorn, …" Not all, but have read many summaries, assessments on both sides, and also many debates between various parties you mention. Sadly, I am yet to find a case where the creationist perspective is presented with sound, a posteriori, scientifically grounded arguments.
"I hope CB25 has at least taken ID proponents seriously, and not swallowed the premature and inadequate dismissal of Intelligent Design by so many Darwinists and some ill informed Christians. "
Yes, I believe I have. In fact I have taken the last decade or two trying to avoid doing otherwise!
Chris
Well, just for the heck of it and to brush up in case I was missing something – I have just wasted over an hour listening to the debate linked below. Jay Richards content was the waste of time. All the others have been covered at some time, but I thought a rehash would not kill me. It would have if frustration was fatal.
I will do my best to be tactful and put it simply. (I can't say it tactfully)
Jay Richards spoke drivel.
Jack, I'm sorry, but what are you on? Can you not see the logical falacies, the assumptions, the invalid arguments, the arguments from silence etc. Even, yet another, argument from the big bang. Oh God help us…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZTzZyloR8w&feature=related
Jack,
Perhaps you can “help me,” as no other evolutionary creationist, or whatever description would best apply, has been so able.
Why and on what basis do you believe that there is a God who created anything or who willfully intervenes, in any way, in the affairs of mankind?
Post parental indoctrination, the basis for my belief is that the Biblical historical narrative and prophetic symbolism make sense to me such that it has caused me to be open to the idea that there is a benevolent, creative, and pre-existent Intelligence. In other words the scriptural narratives of supernatural intervention (by God) are literally believable to me and literally believed by me.
The tipping points have been observation of His benevolence and protective intervention over time.
You likewise believe in a benevolent, creative, and pre-existent Intelligence; but are the scriptural historical narrative and prophetic symbolism the reasons?
Stephen Foster, Sorry to be late to a direct question. My personal answer is of little significance.
I was taught from birth that we were created. So I'd have to answer why I retained that belief which is less pursuasive.
But there are many who come to believe in the inevitability of God from the testimony of nature alone. You know your Bible teaches that this is so, that the fact of God and amazement at His power is the logical conclusion of study of this world and our universe. It is at that point that revelation should be permitted to add to the evidence of Science showing that there must be a god, some information on what kind of a God there is and how we relate to God. Moving from God to Father is the step that I wish Adventism will permit scientists to make, by not demanding a non-scientific chronology of creation which stops conversations before they can be begun by those who really do know such things.
To the contrary Jack, why you “believe” is of great significance; and possibly persuasive.
You are advocating an approach to reality, for lack of a better word, that acknowledges God as the Creator with the possibility, or probability, or certainty that He created this world we know—and in which we inhabit—in ways that science can reveal more accurately than can/has Scripture.
Therefore it would certainly seem to be quite important and relevant that you disclose the basis for your belief that such a Creator exists in the first place.
No one is stopping scientists who believe that there must be a God from believing that God is a loving Father—other than (possibly) those who cast doubt on that which reveals Him as Father.
Then there was the dyslexic philosopher who asked: " Is there a Dog?"
The ontological problem is not such much whether there is or is not a God, rather the defintion of same. How does one define the inponderable? What occurred before the First Cause? What lies beyond infinity, beyond time?
What science can do is tell what God is not. When any group tries to circumsise or circumscribe God, they come up 'short'. Faith is the thin barrier between science and mysticism, and is a moving target, like Present Truth. This then is the microcosmic nutshell problem for Adventism. The question is what kind of nut are you?
and then when he re read his question he got his answer: "there is a Dog".
It's a 'Ruff ' universe out there.
Thanks that was really good. But that is a real problem I have with Dawkins's rather clumsy attempts at positively proving there is no God. I also don't believe in Darwkins's tea pot god or his 747 god either – but that is not quite the same as Dawkins disproving my God who is outside of space and time.
I do agree that science can be very useful to theology, but is limited in the sense it can only tells us what God is not, not what He is. But doesn't that reflect a very long theological tradition of only ever defining God in negative (what He ain't) terminology?
Is theology the study of God? How can a study be made of something no one has seen, no one has heard speak, no one has touched, and all that is known about this god is what earlier people have written? And there are still people who have spent a lifetime in theological studies with large departments of theology in many universities. With nothing different or new that has not been stated before; none which is superior or more valid than other ideas.
God is a faith concept and abstract. What any person believes is no better than another. Doesn't this indicate that it is all subjective? How can it be otherwise?
Theo – 'God'; ology – 'study of'. So yes, it is the study of God.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology
I think you are confusing the notion that you have never seen, heard speak or touched God (nor have I though either) with the notion that others have claimed to have done just that. Knowledge about God can derive from a variety of source including; revelation, tradition, philosophy (both metaphysical and 'physical' science), experience, culture and of course scripture. When we talk about knowledge of God through theology, we usually only mean the study of revelation as recorded in scripture (the two not actually being the same thing), and forgetting the other formative factors.
But I do agree with some of your general intent and themes about subjectivity. The world appears full of people who are pretty dogmatic, and pretty sure of their own peculiar view of God, even to the extent that they are willing to die or rather kill others for that view, all based on what boils down to someone else's subjective experience of God through revelation and then as recorded in sacred scripture.
I think it is possible to have a strong faith but at the same time we open minded and not so dogmatic. The whole idea of 'watching' for the Lord's return to me means keeping your eyes and ears open, not being so fixated on the front door when the theif end up coming through the back window. We only really see God (whoever or whatever that is) through a dirty glass or cracked mirror. The more I study about God and the Bible, the less dogmatic I have become.
No, I am not confused. People have claimed to see God, talk to God, been healed by God and more, but how can that very subjective belief be called knowledge–knowledge that could be studied by others? Included are revelation, tradition, philosophy, culture and scripture. Again, none of that can be objectively called "knowledge" unless one or many accept it as their culture or tradition of belief. But it has not come from knowledge, but mere acceptance
and belonging to a group that has such identity.
As for scripture: the Hebrew Bible is one source that one may read about God, just as the Koran also is written about God. Today, few believe in the same God as described in the Torah, or maybe Job, or Ecclesiastes and most Christians Adventism excepted, rely on the New Testament. Which God is the REAL, TRUE God?
As for dogmatism, all who are absolutely certain that their God is the right one have nothing more than very subjective reasoning. Which is why I respect others' description of God if that works for them and gives them security. What is objectionable, is the attempt to get others to agree to with particular certainty of a god they have created in their own minds.
Personally, I an agnostic in the true meaning of the word, and will confess: I do not know. Anything claimed would only be most subjective and have little or no value for anyone else.
Elaine, what you are not taking into account, and maybe have convinced yourself not to consider, is Fulfilled Prophecy in Scripture.
Fulfilled in what way? We cannot be certain when some "prophecies" were written, and their interpretation is of human origin. To which prophecies are you referring which were fulfilled?
Space will not allow a full answer but to answer briefly
I am thinking of Daniel 7 and 9 for example.
it is really beyond question that Daniel wrote was
written 500 years before Jesus. But let’s say it was written
a few years before Jesus, impossible, but let’s say.
Daniel 7 predicts the details the break up of Rome, the creation of Europe, the rise of a
small power that ‘would be different’ than the others. A religious power
that would continue some 1260 years after the fall of
3 of the divisions of Old Rome-in brief the fall of
the Christian church into spiritually abusive and physically
harmful beast-like power. But the tables would be turned at the
end of it’s 1260 years-the enlightenment, French Revolution and the Age of Reason
brought reforms on all religions, that actually brought about ‘freedom of Religion.
The rise and fall of this abusive religious system was made before hand
by researchers (theologians) basing there finding on Daniel 7.
All the Bible prophets directed their message to contemporary audiences and events. Because of many anachronisms in the book of Daniel, most scholars believe that it was written in the late 2nd century.
The choice of interpreting days to years is arbitrary as is the beginning date to restore and rebuild Jerusalem which was given several times. Thus the ending date of 1843-44 is dependent on the accuracy of the starting time which cannot definitively established.
Even more, nothing that is said to have occurred in heaven can be established. It was "adjusted" by a convenient vision in the cornfield that "saved" the date.
Since neither the beginning nor end of this uniquely Adventist interpretation can be validated, any meaning given it is also arbitrary. Of such ephermal visions are doctrines formed.
The prediction of 1844 is not actually unique to Adventism. Other Christians thought the date significant. Ba'hais actually believe the propechy is about the return of Jesus, but fulfilled in Bab, who I believe came on the scene in 1844. I had a good Ba'hai friend at uni, and we were both shocked to discover that each of us were from totally different religions, but both religions interpreted this biblical prophecy in the same way insofar as thinking 1844 was significant.
Don't get me wrong, I am pretty agnostic about the whole 1844 issue. I think it was important to our pioneers, as present truth, but I hardly think it a 'core' issue at all.
Darrel,
Seems to me that using fulfilled prophecy as an evidence or proof is to stand on very shaky ground.
What degree of certainty can you have about SDA's interpretation being correct? I would suggest a very low one. Different individuals or groups can go back through history looking for things that fit and easily find more than one situation that fits. In other words, "fulfilled" is very much subjective on ones starting premise/s, assumptions, and desired outcomes.
I would suggest that in fact there is NO prophecy of the Bible that can be uncategorically and clearly shown in either its prediction or fulfillment. Take even the "vigin" prophecy. One only has to read the "young woman" in Isaiah to see that it is as clear as mud. Likewise virtually every "prophecy" you can find.
Thus, how can you use fulfilled prophecy as a "proof" of anything?
Chris,
I agree. Retrospective "prophecies" is a handy and convenient method for "proving" fulfillment–for those who are unable to see through the interpretations.
There is no Bible prophecy that extends for thousands of years; they were all given for local and events shortly in the future. One may choose to believe otherwise but the burden of the proof is on them.
True, the NRSV translates in the Gospels 'young women' rather than 'virgin', which has caused some controversy.
I agree with the general thrust that prophecy is indeed a fickle thing. I do believe in it but as I have repeted previously, I think there can be a danger of becoming a 'person of the chart' rather than a 'person of the book' still 'watching'.
The fact that the seventh day at creation was accepted by Jesus the Creator Himself as being part of a literal twenty four hour cycle indicates that the other days of creation week were also of the same duration. Positing some external data as concrete evidence of a viable alternative belief is clever but not in harmony with the Genesis account of Creation.
Furthermore, arguing that the church accept any other speculation or belief which may conflict with what the Bible account reveals is risky and not in harmony with what we as a church organization believe and teach. There are already many conflicting beliefs and practices in other churches as a result of similar compromising. The credibility of the bible being the basis of our faith is then quickly eroded. The Creation Account in Genesis isn’t a part of the OT ceremonial laws of which circumcision was. Although being an option for a number of reasons, circumcision is not the benchmark for formulating doctrinal beliefs: the Bible is. Yes, times may change, people may change but there’s no need to change the Bible or provide alternatives to what it teaches. The word of God changes us to believe and trust in His Word.
Some may opt for alternatives like a lengthy geological earth history and posit that the church accept such; but even if the church accommodated such a belief it will be in conflict with the shorter creation week which the Bible teaches.
"The fact that the seventh day at creation was accepted by Jesus the Creator Himself as being part of a literal twenty four hour cycle indicates that the other days of creation week were also of the same duration."
Who says Jesus accepted the seventh day at creation as a litereal 24-hour cycle – show me where? I don't doubt Jesus upheld the importance of the weekly seventh-day Sabbath. But we don't know if Jesus knew or understood the seventh-day Sabbath as a weekly memorial of God's epoch-Sabbath at creation or not.
This leads directly to the question of whether Jesus limited himself to humanity, or if he used his divinity in being omniscient.
Jesus observed sabbath as an observant Jew, but he definitely did not accept their rules surrounding that day–rules given by God in the Torah.
Correction, Elaine. The rules Jesus did not accept were not found anywhere in the Torah. They were made up by the Jewish leaders. Show me where in the Torah it says not to heal on the Sabbath. Show me where the concept of a "Sabbath Day's journey" is found. How about not picking up one's bed?
At least one: no work should be done on sabbath, and healing was defined as "work." Many of these rules were applicable at the time Jesus lived which is why he was accused of disobeying them; even picking up sticks was punishable by death and Jesus told the lame man to "pick up his bed" which was considerd "work" under their law. There was no previous rule about picking up sticks, but when that happened, Moses ruled it deserved stoning.
Who defined healing as work? Not God. It was the Jewish leaders who had distorted the Sabbath law.
And it was not Moses who ordered the man to be stoned. It was a direct command from God. The man was being defiant. They had been instructed to build no fires on Sabbath. They didn't need them in that climate. Everything was to have been cooked and ready on Friday. The man was without excuse.
"Who says Jesus accepted the seventh day at creation as a litereal 24-hour cycle – show me where?"
He clearly believe in a literal Adam and Eve, and a literal Flood. The account in Gen. 1:1-2:3, is clearly meant to be understood literally, so why would Jesus believe it to be anything else?
There is no legitimate reason to understand it any othe way, except for the fact that mainstream scientists will ridicule you–and we must avoid that at all costs, of course.
I am continually amazed that Jean can read minds. He must sometimes tell the rest of us how he does it. Is it a God-given skill? Or did he develop by a great exertise of will?
"The creation account in Genesis isn't a part of the OT ceremonial laws."
Of course not. The OT ceremonial laws were not given until Sinai and a ceremony is a day to celebrate and/or remember an earlier occasion. The celebrations assigned to the Israelites are listed in Lev. 23, the Sabbath is the first. Nothing could be more ceremonial than a day each week that must be remembered and celebrated. That is the definition of "ceremonial."
Independence Day in the U.S.; Armistice Day; Memorial Day; Thanksgiving and Christmas are all assigned particular time to be remembered by ceremonies.
Sabbath was not prescribed as a day for man to either remember or celebrate until Sinai.The first time the word "sabbath" is mentioned is in the book of Exodus and its observance began at that time, not before.
"The first time the word "sabbath" is mentioned is in the book of Exodus and its observance began at that time, not before."
Sorry my understanding is that is not correct. The word 'rest' in Gen 2:1 literally means 'sabbath'. God 'Sabbathed' from all His work.
Elaine, I do get your whole Sinai- argument. The problem is, the Gen and Ex accounts were effectively written at the same time (if you accept tradition that Moses wrote it all) or if you accept Higher Criticism the Gen 1-2a account was written after as a P source the Exodus account as a J source. The 4th Commandment clearly has a correlation to God's 'Sabbathed' in Gen 1-2a, where God set the day aside.
The fact that not direct reference is made to whether or not the heros and Patriarchs before Sinai kept the Sabbath is not proof that the Sabbath didn't yet exist as a practice. Rather, it is merely the absence of any proof either way. It isn't quite the same thing.
Moreover, the fact that God used the word 'remember' that very first time suggests the Israelites were being told to remember a practice they had forgotten in slavery. Furthermore, they were told to collect double manner on a Friday before the Decalogue was given at Sinai.
In any event, even assuming the Sabbath was brand new at Sinai, who says Christians are not bound to still follow it? What if the command not to blaspheme God's name wasn't given before, or the command to honour one's parents wasn't explictly given before? The point is, the seventh-day Sabbath, forming part of God's Moral Law in the Decalogue, is still applicable for the Christian.
If Moses wrote the Torah, surely he knew the meaning of rest, but chose not to use
Sabbath as the day God rested. In the Fourth commandment, the seventh day was designated Sabbath and a day of rest (rather superfluous), and nothing about worship, as the Israelites were to remain in their tents.
You are using the old illogical explanation: the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence to assume sabbath was observed by the patriarchs. Certainly, it is dishonest to make such an assumption to support sabbath observance since creation. That has been the SDA position.
Your explanation of "remember" is not so clear-cut. If you tell your child as he goes out the door: "remember, drive safely," or you better "remember" to be courteous" does not imply that the slaves in Egypt (who could not possibly have celebrated sabbath) were to remember something for which there is no evidence.
Where is there an account that they had "forgotten" what they could not have been told? Where is there any evidence anyone was previously told about sabbath. Assumptions are poor reasons to support doctrine.
Yes, there are moral laws but only 5-8 of the Decalogue can be called "moral." But to call someone "immoral" for not loving God, worshiping idols, observing the seventh day or coveting (which is a private sentiment). All civil laws are based on the 5-8 and apply to all people. Only the others were specifically applicable to the Israelites as it was never meant for the other tribes around them. In the version in Deut.5: "The Lord God did not make this covenant with our fathers but with all those of us alive here today,"
The Decalogue was only a very small portion of the many laws given in the covenant with the Israelites, and in the deuteronomic version, the seventh day is to "remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out of there….therefore the Lord your God commanded you to observe the sabbath day.
"
o, take your pick: the sabbath was given to remember creation; or to remember freedom for slavery.
If Christians are bound to observe the seventh day as holy why is the NT completely silent on this if it were so very important? The OT is replete with mentions of sabbath and its observance. The NT instructions to Christians is silent.
The sabbath is a very time-specific law while the civil laws apply everywhere. Not observing sabbath does not make one immoral and it cannot be a moral law for that reason, any more than not worshiping God is immoral. Those four laws are applicable ONLY in a theocracy, and we do not live in a Judeo-Christian theocracy today.
"Yes, there are moral laws but only 5-8 of the Decalogue can be called "moral." But to call someone "immoral" for not loving God, worshiping idols, observing the seventh day or coveting (which is a private sentiment)."
Elaine, I think you are engaging in your own eisegesis or retrojection of 21st Century secular values back thousands of years. I don't deny that you personally don't think that the 1st 4 of the Ten Commandments re worshipping other gods or making idols for worship, or keeping the Sabbath are not 'immoral', but I think both the OT and NT authors didn't share that view. In fact, worshipping idols is not just immoral, they believed it was the height of immortality.
The central raddical message of the Bible is the worship of one monotheistic god as Creator. That involves having no other gods, no making idols, no taking the Lord's name in vain and yes, keeping the Sabbath. I have no problems with you choosing not to worship god. But for those of us you do, these aspects of true worship are 'moral' issues.
You seem to be focused on the 2nd Great Commandment about loving our neighbour whilst glossing over the 1st Great Commandment about loving God. You will note which Command Jesus said was the Greatest – loving God comes before loving fellow man!
If the ten commandments cannot be made operational and relevant today, they become an archaic remnant of past cultures.
Yes, Christ and the apostles said that loving God and one's neighbor are the summation of the Law, but do we truly believe that we cannot be trusted to love unaccompanied by a multiple list of rules in addition?
Here in the U.S., and in many parts of the world there are a great number of religions represented. And many will claim to love God. Should their love for God be worthless if they do not worship the seventh day? Why?
Of course people's worship of God in other religions and cultures is not worthless – I never said that at all. Paul makes clear in Rom 2 that when Gentiles do so by nature the things in the Law they follow the Law without receiving any formal instruction. Paul also explains this best in Acts 14:16-17 when he makes clear that God has always provided a witness in all cultures for all nations. However, knowledge of Jesus of the Bible brings us into more perfect worship of God.
By analogy, my then-girlfriend (now my wife) lived in France for a year whilst we were dating. We wrote letters, spoke on the telephone and emailed, and there was certainly worth in that form of communion for our relationship. But that was no substitute for a more perfect form of communion that comes from spending physical time together.
That is how I see the Sabbath.
"If Christians are bound to observe the seventh day as holy why is the NT completely silent on this if it were so very important?"
Firstly, there are multiple passages in the Gospels where Jesus doesn't strike down Sabbath-keeping but rather teaches true Sabbath-keeping.
Secondly, there are multiple examples of both Jews and Gentiles meeting on the Sabbath.
Thirdly and most logically, the whole dispute in the NT was about circumcission. Paul realised very quickly that not many Gentiles were willing to have their members cut with the knife! By contrast, the Sabbath is not mentioned because it was a total non issue – Gentiles were already meeting in synagogues on the Sabbath before Christianity arrived.
Fourth, you have the onus all backwards. The onus is on you to show why if the NT taught Sabbath-keeping is not required there are no versus explictly abrogating the seventh-day Sabbath. Texts such as Col 2 are clearly about Jewish ceremonial holy days, not the weekly Sabbath.
You did not answer the question why the NT is awesomely silent on teaching sabbath observance to the pagan converts.
Yes, Christ only ministered to the Jewish people; in fact he told his disciples to "go not unto the Gentiles" which is why he spoke of the misuse of the Jewish Sabbath practices.
Sabbath was not an issue, as you say. But if you read in Exodus before they Israelites followed Moses and left for Egypt, any non-Jews who wished to accompany them must first be circumcised as a mark of their conversion. Also included in that order was that circumcision was a requirement in order to observe all the additional observances which later were given to them. Of course, the story of Exodus was written long after the actual event.
Asking for evidence that there is none is totally illogic, just as "When did you stop beating your wife"? Shall I assume that whatever you answer will be evidence against you? So to say that simply because there is no mention in the early Pauline letters to the new Christians of proper sabbath observance, this is clear and convincing evidence that they were observing sabbath? It is clearly, an assumption lacking evidence. If a doctrine is of ultimate importance, should there at least be more convincing evidence than the absence of any record of Gentile sabbath observance?
No, the section in Col. 2 lists the order of ceremonial occasions: "festivals (annual); new moons (monthly); Sabbath day" It is not ambiguous at all. In all other Bible texts that mention such (2 Kings 4:23), they are listed in either ascending or descending order. If the time rather than the event were substituted, it would read:
"Let no one judge in regard to annual events, monthly events, or annual events" if the annual sabbaths were meant. When the Jews wrote of sabbath they were referring to the weekly sabbath and lacking calendars, they calculated it by the new moon. Check how many times new moon and sabbath are linked in the Bible. The new moon was so important as it was their only method of locating the sabbath properly.
I suggest you read the following detailed scholarly articles from the GC's BRI on Col. 2:
See: http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/Sabbathdaycolossians.htm
And: http://adventistcultmisconceptions.blogspot.com.au/2011/03/31-what-about-bible-texts-saying_11.html
"Asking for evidence that there is none is totally illogic"
But didn't you ask for evidence that the Sabbath still applies in the NT, when there is none, in the same way I ask for evidence that the Sabbath has done away with in the NT, where there is none.
It isn't just SDA propaganda. As Lutheran theologian Dougals Moo admits in ‘Five views on Law and Gospel’ (1996):
As Evangelical-Dispensationalist theologian Wayne G. Strickland also observed in ‘Five views on Law and Gospel’ (1996):
"You did not answer the question why the NT is awesomely silent on teaching sabbath observance to the pagan converts."
Actually, I think I did answer it pretty well. Again, the onus is on you, not me.
Moreover, many of these converts were not 'pagan' per se but rather 'God-fearing' Gentiles. Likewise, I could ask why the NT is quite silent at times on teaching belief in one monotheistic God – it was already accepted by the God-fearers. The focus was on circumcission or Jewish food practices that were barriers to Gentile converts. Sabbath-keeping was hardly a barrier at all, which is the most logical explanation as to why it is silent in the NT.
Let me ask you. Given how fanatatical the Pharisees were on Jesus' teachings re Sabbath-keeping, and Juaizing-Christians so fanatically on the practice of circumcission, why if the NT suggests the seventh-day Sabbath was abrogated, is the NT so awesomely silent? It is frankly unbelieveable that Jesus could have major debates with Pharisees re Sabbath-keeping, and circumcission dominated so many pages of the latter NT, and yet Sabbath-keeping was according to you abolished without a murmur of discussion at all!
"God-fearers" was the term used for Gentiles who appreciated the Jewish God rather than the many gods that were worshiped all around them. To infer that it meant observing the Jewish law cannot be correct for the simple reason that only circumcision allowed them to observe the Law. Read how many times in Paul's letters he addresses the Law: it is one which he wrote about most: the relationship between the Law, which was idolized and guided every step of Jewish life, and he spent much time correcting the new Christians understanding of the place of the Law in their lives NOW.
Silence can never be a logical explanation. What does that mean? absolutely nothing. If I don't have a car does that mean I don't drive? If I have a car does that mean that I drive? Silence is just that: it says nothing and to try to either assume, or conjecture is eisegesis: trying to interpret what is believed to have, somehow, been overlooked by the careless NT writers.
Forget about the Jews! Paul was evangelizing with Gentiles, not Jews. Peter and James stayed in Jerusalem and worked with the Jews who continued to practice circumcision and the Jewish Law and its rituals. This is not assumption, but clearly stated when the two groups separated: the only requirement made was no food served to idols, no blood, nor fornication, period.
Yes, if one wishes to follow Jesus' examples in everything, why not return to Judaism? If you study the early Christian church you will find no mention of any of the Gentile Christians observing the seventh day. As a matter of fact, three very prominent SDA theologians have quoted many of the church fathers of the early second century that the Christians were meeting regularly on the first day to celebrate the resurrection. There is absolutely no other reason for Christianity to be a religion were it not for the resurrection, and this is the single event that initiated it. You will not find any record of Jewish-Christians following the fall of the temple after 70 A.D. They, and their sabbath faded from view and Christianity became a Gentile religion. Jewish-Christianity was very short-lived.
Several times I have tried to explain that only circumcision allowed Gentiles (pagans) to become part of the Jewish family. They were very strict and Judaism was both an ethnicity and religion, and they never proselytized as they believed, rightly, that their law was given to them and no other. No where in the OT can you find that surrounding pagans were given the Law, or that it applied to them, or that they must obey it.
The Jews were very jealous of their law, rituals, observances and festivals. That is why the controversy centered on circumcision: it was the initiating requirement before anyone was even allowed to observe the Jewish Law, which included sabbath, all the festivals and feasts, the dietary and holiness laws, the whole and entire Law given the Israelites by their God. It was circumcision that made one a Jew. Not until the ceremony on the 8th day did they officially become part of Judaism.
A religion that stakes sabbath at its very heart should have much more convincing evidence that it should be incorporated into Christianity than mere assumptions and conjectures. The Gospels were written to give meaning to Christ's life and were written much later than Paul. Paul established and gave the Christian church its meaning and mission. You, and all Christians are descendants of that church. Adventists placed much greater emphasis on the Hebrew religion and its practices when establishing doctrine than the Christian's instruction manual that Paul and the other writers, following the Gospels.
Elaine, the fundamental difference in our views is that you see Christianity as an utter, complete break with Judaism, not a continuation or transformation of Judaism. I would suggest that my views are more akin to the historic creeds of Christendom. For example, the Anglican/Episcopalian view as stated in the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion (1563) says:
“VII. Of the Old Testament.
The Old Testament is not contrary to the New: for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to Mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and Man, being both God and Man. Wherefore they are not to be heard, which feign that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the Civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral.” (emphasis added)
Your whole approach is very similar to the argument of Marcion and his fellow proto-Gnostics (who incidentially developed the first cannon of the NT, which included only 1 Gospel and only the writings of Paul). They effectively held that the God of the OT was actually an evil being.
Personally, I think there is a clear tension in the NT between the views of the Judaizers on the one hand (who said believers had to be full Jews) and the proto-Gnostics on the other (who said you had to totally do away with all aspects of Judaism).
Most Christian denominations are somewhere on that continuum, in the same ways as different factions of the early Church were somewhere on that continuum. However, I would suggest you are hardly following the position of St Paul but something much more extreme.
I don't believe Adventists are Judaizers, as you suggest. Rather, Adventists maintain their views in accordance with the tradition division of the Law into Moral, ceremonial and civil aspects, in accordance with the historic creeds of Christendom. I know you don't follow them at all, but rather seem to advocate proto-Gnosticism. Given our fundamentally different philosophies, which influence our overall theological outlook, our dialogue is pretty meaningless in my view.
And if one wants to talk about a Christian denomination trying to act like Jews, one could argue the Roman Catholic Church itself is one of the most Judaizing. Consider they:
One could go on…
"Not observing sabbath does not make one immoral and it cannot be a moral law for that reason, any more than not worshiping God is immoral."
Elaine, that if where you and I fundamentally disagree, and where Christian athiesm (i.e. trying to apply the ethical teachings of Jesus without a belief in God and the supernatural) is so hollow. For those of us who do truly believe in 1 God, and where the whole raddical message of the Bible (and the Jews true gift to civilisation) is monotheism, to 'not worship God' is immoral. The Sabbath is an integral part of that true worship of God, in the same way as not making graven images.
Yes Stephen,
We fundamentally disagree 😉 Jews gave us monotheism; Christians gave us the Trinity! The NT clearly explains that Christianity is not simply accepting Christ and then incorporating Judaism.
Is it rejecting the OT to separate the descriptive from the prescriptive? No Christian, no Adventist accepts the Hebrew Bible as prescribing all its doctrines. Who decides what is still to be prescriptive? Who decides which are only descriptive?
Just like Marcion and the other gnostics then? Seriously, have you checked Christian Gnosticism out (I have a good friend who is a Christian Gnostic).
"Those four laws are applicable ONLY in a theocracy, and we do not live in a Judeo-Christian theocracy today."
No, we don't live in a theocracy today, and no one is suggesting the State should force anyone to accept the first 4 of the Ten Commandments. If you don't want to worship 1 monotheistic god I couldn't care less – nor should the State care less.
But equally, if I do want to worship 1 god, and think that integral to that worship is keeping the Sabbath, why are you so obsessed with convincing me and fellow Adventists to give up that belief? Why do you bring up Sabbath-keeping at every opportunity, however questionably relevant, in the same way as say Nic does with abortion?
As we don't live in a theocracy, why not just let Adventists, who choose to associate on an Adentist-affiliated website, choose to continue in their belief in God, Jesus, the Bible and the Sabbath? What is the source of your passion to convert us to your Christian-atheist views?
Before Christ was born the Romans made an agreement with the Jews for them to govern their people and the Romans have always been known as allowing its ruled people to handle internal affairs–a very smart move: no micromanaging. This gave the Jews freedom to practice their temple rituals, festivals, etc. They lived in a theocracy.
With the first diaspora several centuries earlier, the majority of Jews lived outside Judea and adapted to local customs as they lived in other forms of government. If you read back several days earlier you will find that someone else raised the sabbath and its relation to creation week.
Yes Elaine, I do know all this. I am not quite sure what your point is? Are you suggesting that Jews and Christians today are not bound to have refrain from worshipping idols because that is just something for theocratic Israel? Sorry, but I really can't follow your logic at all.
Before Christ was born the Romans made an agreement with the Jews for them to govern their people and the Romans have always been known as allowing its ruled people to handle internal affairs–a very smart move: no micromanaging. This gave the Jews freedom to practice their temple rituals, festivals, etc. They lived in a theocracy.
With the first diaspora several centuries earlier, the majority of Jews lived outside Judea and adapted to local customs as they lived in other forms of government. If you read back several days earlier you will find that someone else raised the sabbath and its relation to creation week.
Circumcision as a covenant was introduced as early as Gen 17:10-11 when God requested it. The twenty four hour rest that God enjoyed at creation week was also given to Israel: yes – but even before the covenant at Sinai (remember when the manna fell – Ex 16:25-26). Sinai was where the same Abrahamic (Adamic?) covenant was renewed rather than introduced, albeit this time corporately as a nation. The sacrificial system as well came long before Sinai, pointing to Messiah and was prescribed by God Himself. The story of Cain and Abel illustrates this well (Gen 4:3-5). The act of creation was not a ceremonial law. We have to remember that.
It cannot be assumed that all of the Torah is in strict sequential order. It was written long after the Exodus.
The sacrificial system was not new with the Israelites or patriarchs. It has been practiced by many peoples as far as history has been recorded. Nor did the Israelites offering sacrifices have the slightest realization that it pointed to a coming Messiah. These meanings are retrospective interpretations by much later writers.
"Nor did the Israelites offering sacrifices have the slightest realization that it pointed to a coming Messiah."
Elaine, you never cease to amaze me. Apparently you have mastered the skills necessary to read the minds of all the Israelites from the time of the Exodus until Jesus came. And so you can categorically state that they had no clue what the Passover lamb pointed toward? R i g h t . Beam me up, Scotty.
Jean,
Perhaps you would be kind enough to inform me of what I have missed: That the Israelites were most keenly aware that their sacrifices all pointed to a future Messiah? A Messiah that they totally rejected. What texts proving this did I miss?
So there are no texts that statem categorically that the Jews understood the sacrificial system. That's an an argument from silence. It proves nothing. Jesus said that Abraham saw His day and was glad. That is a strong indication that Abraham understood the sacrificial system. His near sacrifice of Isaac must have clarified it for him if nothing else did. But to assert than none of his descendants understood what the sacrifices were for is impossible to prove, and highly unlikely. They rejected the Messiah because they misinterpreted the prophecies about Him, not because they didn't know the meaning of the sacrificial system.
I didn't claim the Jews knew the meaning of their sacrifices. You made that statement, and I asked for evidence. You reply with "strong indication,"
"must have clarified." Sounds like assumptions to the reader.
The first account of these sacrifices meant to typify the sacrifice of Jesus were made in the NT, I believe, not in the OT.
Maybe there should be a list made of all the assumptions given to support a belief.
Quit twisting the argument. You claimed that the Jews did not know the meaning of the sacrifiial system. But you didn't, and can't, prove it. It's an argument from silence, a logical fallacy. I maintain that there is at least some evidence that they did understand it, if only in a limited way. If we're making asumptions (and we both are), there is more reason to assume my position than yours.
"It cannot be assumed that all of the Torah is in strict sequential order."
Totally agree. Why then do you place such emphasis on saying the Sabbath command only came into existence at Sinai and not earlier with the Patriarchs? As we have discussed many times, even assuming the JEDP theory, the Gen 1-2a account would be written after the Exodus and Deut accounts establishing the Sabbath command.
As we have also discussed, silence can't be used as proof of anything.
The Gen 1-2a account was probably written to make the importance of Sabbath-keeping uniequivocally clear, as many scholars suggest God resting on the seventh-day and making it holy was to reinforce the Sabbath. By tying it to creation itself, the writers of this P source are trying to universalise the Sabbath command, by making it much broader. The P source does this a lot, turning Yahweh from a local deity into the Creator of the entire universe. Thus, the true worship of Yahweh, which includes the Sabbath, is not just a matter for Jews, but something for all human beings, as all human beings are descended from Adam.
Y and P sources? Writers? Local deity vs. Creator of the entire universe? Stephen, if you are right, how much of Genesis was inspired – versus agreed to as an redacted, editorial compromise? Seems to me that you are by implication agreeing to Elaine's relativistic approach of interpreting an ancient text written over a broad span of time.
I am 'suspending disbelief' and arguing the point from Elaine's own perspective, showing that even applying her methodology that the Torah was not written in strict sequential order, that in itself still does not abrogate the Sabbath command.
Where is the evidence that only original authors and not redactors and editors are inspired by God?
Perhaps best to use a NT example. Why are the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in the cannon but not say the Gospel of Judas or Barnabas? I personally believe those who chose the books that went into the NT were 'inspired'? If avenger doesn't believe redactors and editors can be inspired, on what basis can we have confidence that Matthew should be in the Bible but not Judas?
How can one judge who is inspired and who wasn't thousands of years ago? If the NT canon was chosen by inspired people, who is to say that those reading and interpreting it today are not also inspired? Or that by inspiration not choice of books to be canonized were selected? Where does inspiration and personal choice become one and the same? They were humans no better, no worse, than we today.
There were changes, additions, and deletions in the NT canon that have been added or changed at later dates by scribes or people unknown. Who inspired them to make those changes?
We choose to believe the Bible is inspired, but it is impossible both to define it and to locate its presence or absence. Just as Mormons believe their books are inspired, and Muslims believe that the Koran is more sacred than any, Christian believes equally of the Bible. It's arguing over personal choices and decisions: unprovable, impossible to verify. Let's argue over whether the U.S. is more God's country than others.
To Kevin Riley
Re Where is the Evidence
Excellent point.
Where is the evidence that Darwin, Newton, Gandhi, Tolkein etc. were not inspired by God?
22oct…
You may not have been around AT long enough to have assayed the problems associated with most of the biblical "statements of truth" you have made above. Most all of which have been discussed at too great length already.
Suffice to say, it is possible to go through EVERY "truth" you listed above and write alongside it: Assumption. eg: Seventh day; creation; Jesus's reality; days; creation week etc etc.
Just go through your list and test each proposition a posteriori. NONE will stand without serious challenge.
Scientists believe (this being a large number of them), that the universe has existed about 13 billion years (give or take a few million or billion which I thought I should add as is usually the case with such beliefs). They assert that the earth was formed 4.5 billion years ago and that life first appeared at least 2.5 billion years ago. My point is that no matter how you spin this one, life has to appear (according to their belief), a very long time ago which is totally inconsistent with Genesis. Death would have also occurred long before and therefore presenting further problems. As a result of the many permutations within the vast complexity of our beginnings, the debate between YEC, GapC, Day-ageC, ProgressiveC and ID rages. They all use some sort of scientific spin to fight their cases. The Bible offers us BC (Bible Creation), revealing an Awesome God who made all things. Why complicate things?
No need to complicate things as long as Faith and Science remain distinct, seperate disciplines. It is when one is foisted upon the other that 'things' get complex.
22oct..
'The Bible offers us BC (Bible Creation), revealing an Awesome God who made all things. Why complicate things?"
Because I am not an ostrich.
Because the God of the Bible would not duck from big questions like the evidence of nature, with a "Keep it simple, Charlie" answer, so why should His followers?
Complexity and contingency for various yet unrealized circumstances that all life demonstrates are huge proofs of intelligent design.
A kiss is simple and elegant, but how a kiss is possible, and why it is so satisfying is wonderfully complex. I do admit you can kiss without understanding why you enjoy it. But you can also enjoy finding out why you enjoyed it!
We don't complicate things, we just discover that they are amazingly complex.
That is only a danger to those demanding simplicity, against all evidence that life and religion are not simple.
"You must remember this
A kiss is just a kiss, a sigh is just a sigh.
The fundamental things apply
As time goes by."
( Addendum to Why Complicate Things? I went to study for SS lesson tomorrow, and this answer just jumped off the page: Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament, page 172)
"We do not honor the Lord nor do we uphold the gospel by playing make-believe."
Ever notice how God doesn't seems to inspire two prophets at the same time with the same message?
Why not?
Perhaps he gets tired of repeating himself? Maybe having to do so each generation is enough for him without having to have the same message presented twice to the same generation.
Avenger, how would you answer your question?
Apart from Matthew, Mark, Luke and John who presumably were all inspired and gave the same message about Jesus but with small differences and from 4 different angles. Oh, and apart from Paul in Gal and Luke in Acts, who presumably were both inspired and describe many of the same events, such as the Council in Jerusalem and Antioch incident, but with small differences and 2 different angles. Oh, and apart from perhaps the writers of Kings and Chronicles, who describe many of the same events with small differences and from 2 different angles. Oh, oh, and apart from mnay of the prophets of the OT, including even the Court prophets.
Sorry, what were you saying again avenger?
P.S. Which avenger are you – Iron Man, Captain America, Thor or the Hulk? Can I assume Thor, because of the religious connotations?
Presumably.
Stephen,
Are you suggesting those for Gospels were written/insipired at the same time?
Those four books made their way into Canon at different times over a period of time. Also, they were written at different times.
eg. Mark between 60 & 70 A.D. Matthew, 70 – 80 A.D. Luke, 80 – 90 A.D. And John, 90 -100 A.D. All dates are conjectural.
Based on this, can we assume there is "evidence" that the "original" authors were inspired? What evidence are we actually looking at, or for? Or, perhaps this is an argument from silence, where there is no evidence to suggest the editors etc were not inspired, so they must have been. What, because they were handling "inspired" writings? Perhaps their "inspiration" was that they "recognized" the writings as inspired? Perhaps in their editing, or both?
Why am I beginning to think of my blog Thank God for Ellen White?
"...inspiration, authority and function of an inspired writer or book are primarily granted, and sustained, within and by the perpetuation of a worldview within a community of believers." bold added.
Inspiration is in the eye of the beholders! Or is that the "believers"?! Does any different evidence apply? Whether Vedas, Old Testament, New Testament, Koran, Book of Mormon, etc.
This is off topic in a way, but it is also relevant to the blog. The whole premise of Creation is being addressed on the assumed foundation of the authority of the Christian Scriptures. We are bending ourselves into all kinds of mental contortions to "fit" one form of belief or another into that framework. What would happen, if, for one moment of sanity, we stepped back and viewed the Bible with the same sense of question, analysis, credibility, and doubt that most of us would level at the Vedas, Koran, or the Book of Mormon? Would we try to force clear observations about nature and the way our world is into the view of reality provided by any of those writings? Doubt it.
No Chris, I am not suggesting they were written at the same time exactly. But what do we mean by 'same time'? They were written around the same time and they do have a similar message – contrary to avengers key assertion. If we assume redactors are also 'inspired authors', then they were certainly written at the same time.
I do agree with some of your other points, insofar as scripture is sacred because of community of believers says it is. Theology, as distinct from religious philosophy, if we take Alistair McGrath's definition, is a discussion about God through a community of faith. That is why my usual bug-bare is realising this forum usually requires a discussion within the community of faith of the SDA disapora. However, I do agree that your points are very relevant to the topic here.
I'll be honest with you and admit that probably the biggest challenge to my faith personally is why do I worship the Hebrew God of the Bible? When I read Dawkins's God Delusion, his arguments against a God per se were very poor, especially considering all the circumstantial evidence to the contrary, including: anthropormphic principle (there are like 8 or 9 laws of physics that are exactly right for life to exist in the universe); goldilocks principle; statistical chance of life existing in this universe and on earth; the fact the universe has order and laws; Pascals Wager etc etc.
However, Dawkins was much more convincing in posing the question – if you believing in God, even 1 God – why do you believe in the Hebrew God of the Bible? For me there are a number of reasons – and not sufficient space to explain them all.
Stephen,
While you are evaluating reasons to believe in the Hebrew God, you might find this vid of interest. Even in the absence of hell theology, it is confronting. If you want your thinking challenged, just follow a few of Sam's vids on Youtube. It will wrench you outside of the SDA diaspora for a whole new perspective.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=TcSdPJb9c6k
Harris’ argument is in essence: because there is evil, there is no good God.
Sam Harris is bright guy, Chris, but apparently ill-informed about…evil and the cause/results of evil; and totally ignorant about the controversy.
We believe that there will be an innumerable number of people whom have never been familiar, or familiarized, with the Hebrew God who will be saved; simply because of the inclusive truth of John 3:17.
(In my view, Catholicism has served its purposes by presenting Harris with this caricature; but that’s another topic altogether; isn’t it?)
To say someone is "ill-informed" means nothing except you disagree with him.
Adventists are considered "ill-informed" by JWs, Mormons, Catholics, and more. If that is the only position taken against any ideology, it is completely devoid of meaning.
Sam should make everyone think a little deeper about the origin of their biases.
We are all biased, but introspection may reveal more than we care to investigate: i.e. why, when, and how did you choose your religion? The trite answer usually given: "Because the Adventists are the only ones explaining the Bible and how it answers prophecy."
When did you arrive at this momentous decision? Were you previously: Mormon, Catholic, Muslim, Buddhist? Is that not important?
Stephen Foster,
Did you miss my comment "even in the absence of hell theology"?
I have one question for you: What did Calvary NOT achieve that we are still here 2000 years on with all the intervening and associated life, death and suffering by untold millions?
I expect your answer will not include "last generation theology". It will not include "remnancy". It will not include "prophecy" that had to be fulfilled. All are those are subject to interpretation.
I am asking what Calvary did NOT achieve. IF there is nothing that it did not achieve, then please address the question of why Jesus has not returned.
I need you to unpack the “absence of hell theology” caveat; as well as your suggestion that “last generation theology,” “remnancy,” and “prophecy” not be part of my answer.
I thought that liberals believed that everything is “subject to interpretation;” so, do you want an answer, or don’t you?
I am not God and do not know precisely why the promise of Acts 1:11 has not yet come to fruition.
May I ask you what’s the point or purpose of posting Sam Harris’s argument? Are we to consider it one worthy of consideration; or is it to prepare us for an appropriate response or apologetic?
I mean, because he doesn’t understand why horrible things are permitted to happen; we are not supposed to believe in God? C’mon man, you can certainly do better. None of us can understand why any terrible thing happens in isolation; we only know that rebellion has caused death, generally.
You ask a good question regarding Calvary. I believe that Calvary accomplished everything necessary for salvation; except our belief of this. We believe, yet we do not believe.
…."Are we to consider it one worthy of consideration; or is it to prepare us for an appropriate response or apologetic?"
All views are worthy of our consideration. If we do not consider other views we are naval gazing, self measuring, ignorant people. IF we consider other views and find them wanting, given that we have carefully considered why we find them so, we then have an appropriate response or apologetic!
If, in the event of considering them, we find our own view to be weak, or wrong, we aught follow where the evidence leads.
I am glad to know that we "know" that rebellion has caused death. And your a posteriori evidence for that? If one accepts an evolutionary framework and timescale (even an ID one) it produces gaping holes in the GC theme. eg. 98% of all life forms to ever inhabit earth are gone. Trillions of animals, and creatures, including humans suffering for millions of years. God intervenes after how long? He intervenes with a supposedly completed event that supposedly enables him to deal with "evil". 2000 years of continued misery for millions.
The GC theme does not explain all that stuff. Note. I am not saying there is no evidence of a good/evil context or within the universe and life. HOW we interpret that is another thing.
Of course you don't know why Acts 1:11 has not happened yet. Current biblical theology has NO answer. Remnancy, LGT, propecy, lack of beleif (really) are all just our best yet excuses.
Reality should inform our theology, not our theology informing our reality. God and intervention are not what we glean from the Bible. That is clear from reality.
“He intervenes with a supposedly completed event that supposedly enables him to deal with "evil". 2000 years of continued misery for millions."
Very good point Chris. Believing in evolution doesn’t kill God – but it does make problems such as theodicy all the harder.
It is the millions of years of suffering necessary for evolution that really concerns me if evolution is true. Christopher Southgate in ‘The Groaning of Creation’ notes that there is a tendency to focus just on the thousands or millions of years of human suffering, not the billions of years of animal pain and suffering.
The Reformed-Calvinist response, that God actively chose to use suffering in a deliberate manner as if we are all puppets frankly makes me hate God. I much prefer the Wesleyan-Arminian evolutionary theologians, including some notable RC ones such as John Haught, who offer to me a much better explanation.
The best answers to the problems of evolution and theodicy include something akin to:
Again, I am not overly dogmatic about which view is ‘correct’, but I think all of these theories probably have merit. I think it just as important to ask the question as it is to have an answer.
"If one accepts an evolutionary framework and timescale (even an ID one) it produces gaping holes in the GC theme. eg. 98% of all life forms to ever inhabit earth are gone. Trillions of animals, and creatures, including humans suffering for millions of years."
I would have to think that this is an example—perhaps even a prime example—of a counterfactual conditional.
"Of course you don't know why Acts 1:11 has not happened yet. Current biblical theology has NO answer. Remnancy, LGT, propecy, lack of beleif (really) are all just our best yet excuses."
Well, if you consider ANY answer to be an excuse, you can’t but have it your way.
"Reality should inform our theology, not our theology informing our reality. God and intervention are not what we glean from the Bible. That is clear from reality."
This is our fundamental disagreement. Theology explains reality. 2 Corinthians 4:18 is a true statement. God’s realm is the only real reality.
“I am asking what Calvary did NOT achieve. IF there is nothing that it did not achieve, then please address the question of why Jesus has not returned.”
Very good question Chris. Much of the early part of the NT is about telling new believers how Jesus is coming very soon – so soon in fact that there is no time for marriage for example. The later part of the NT is about reassuring believers that Jesus is still coming back soon. Compare 1 Thes to 2 Thes as a good illustration.
Thus, Chris is effectively asking a 2,000 year-old question – why hasn’t Jesus returned yet. What is Christ doing if His atonement on the Cross was complete and final?
I would say the Bible has three main explanations to the delay:
But ultimately, we don’t really know why the delay, any more than Job knew about the Holy bet between God and Satan.
Humans cannot know God's plans, but that doesn't prevent making assumptions.
Why should it make any difference when He comes? Rather that looking for some future event, the most certain and sure is death which is when His coming will be seen by those of all the millions who have died believing it would be "soon"? Recall that Peter wrote that with God 1,000 years are as 1,000 days
and his days may be as our years.
Live life as if it ends tomorrow; but plan for it to extend forever.
“Why should it make any difference when He comes?”
Agreed, let us all assume that the notion of the Second Advent is a reality. I have often wondered why God did spell out exactly when He would return. Obviously, it is because there is some present benefit in not knowing the hour of His return.
To use a work analogy, a public servant who knows they have a job for life doesn’t quite have the same motivation as a private-sector worker who can be fired tomorrow. Likewise, a person with a terminal illness has a very different perspective on life than someone who thinks they have another 50 years’ worth of living.
I assume Jesus talked about watching and praying because He wanted that to foster a sense of urgency in our outlook of life and the importance of our relationship to Him. However, I wonder how many Adventists have become ‘People of the Chart’ whilst others no longer expect Him to return at all – both extremes that result in people no longer watching and praying.
I totally agree we should live life as if it ends tomorrow; but plan for it to extend forever.
Sorry that is I have wondered why God did not spell out exactly when He would return.
Humans cannot know God's plans, but that doesn't prevent making assumptions.
Why should it make any difference when He comes? Rather that looking for some future event, the most certain and sure is death which is when His coming will be seen by those of all the millions who have died believing it would be "soon"? Recall that Peter wrote that with God 1,000 years are as 1,000 days
and his days may be as our years.
Live life as if it ends tomorrow; but plan for it to extend forever.
CB 25
I would say Lgt answers your questions
"We believe that there will be an innumerable number of people whom have never been familiar, or familiarized, with the Hebrew God who will be saved; simply because of the inclusive truth of John 3:17."
Virtually every people, culture and religion do believe in an ultimate monotheistic god – they just usually think He (or she or it) is too away to worship. I suggest reading Karen Armstrong's History of God for that point. Even the pagan Hindus believe in an ultimate Brahman and the Greeks the Ulitmate Cause.
My point is – dare I say the Hebrew God is the same God all these other people worship. Dare I also say the Bible even teaches that. It is just that the Hebrew God (and even more so in the doctrine of the Trinity) is arguably the best view or angle or explanation of that one God. Australian Aboriginals, when they learn about Jesus, sometimes say they already knew much of this, but that the Bible teaches a different side, a fuller side, than they knew before.
Karen Armstrong's book should be read by all Christians for an unbiased history of the developing belief in God.
A partner is her The Great Transformation, the history of the very beginnings of religious beliefs and practices around the world: the commonalities and differences.
All religions have a belief in a 1 Ultimate Creator God as I said – even so-called pagan nations. What I really got from reading Armstrong’s A History of God is that there are really three models or views of this 1 Ultimate Creator God:
Coming to the end of Armstrong’s book, the penny that dropped for me is that every culture and religion has some validity in their view of God – and we should perhaps be a little less dogmatic and arrogant about our own views. However, the benefit of Christianity was that it did ingeniously combine all three views of God but in 1 God through the doctrine of the Trinity. That is just my own personal view and spiritual journey, but a strong part as to why I am a Christian.
When a group sets its own paradigm and all their beliefs must fit within that boundary, it soon leads to "group think" where everything must be interpted by that paradigm. No better illustration can be found that the SDA theme of the Great Controversy. If it doesn't fit within that template, is is apostasy.
People begin to speak in jargon, meaningless to "outsiders." "Creation" only means the Bible story and it MUST have been no longer than 6,000 years ago.
Also "known" is that sin caused all the disease, death of humans and animals; the predatory behavior of animals that were meek as lamb and grass eaters before sin occurred. From only a few, brief verses in Genesis have whole volumes been written "explaining" and "describing" as if there were eye witnesses to this immediate and miraculous sudden change.
But then, it's only one explanation of creation. Many others in cultures throughout the world are even more colorful, but of course, only the Bible, when it is rightly interpreted by us, and our prophet, is the correct one.
Elaine, society (and sub-societies) is full of group think. Human beings are social animals, and unless you are a psychopath, you are just as captured to group think as the rest of us. Every society has its insiders and jargon.
For example, I belong to the SDA society. I also belong to the Australian society. I also belong to the legal fraternity. In each of these societies and sub-society, I am captured by social and cultural expectations, many of which people take for granted and are based on unwritten or barely written conventions.
When I was a junior lawyer I asked my boss why do you have to wear a suit jacket and tie in Court. He said He didn't really know – everyone just does it and you have to do it too.
Elaine,
Insiders and outsiders – so true. If any here want a glimpse of how they themselves may appear to others there's a great link below.
Here's a quote from it explaining how to defend the Book of Mormon as revelation from God:
"…Fourth, explain that whether or not we have modern prophets and revelation really depends on whether the Book of Mormon is true. Therefore, the only problem the objector has to resolve for himself is whether the Book of Mormon is true. For if the Book of Mormon is true, then Jesus is the Christ, Joseph Smith was His prophet, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true, and it is being led today by a prophet receiving revelation."
Isn't that cool. Sounds so like the house of cards (is there 66 of them, oops, nearly added a 6) from which we wage war against the testimony of nature that we and our world have evolved.
That just reminded me of a joke.
"Three freshman-engineering students were sitting around talking between classes, when one brought up the question of who designed the human body. One of the students insisted that the human body must have been designed by an electrical engineer because of the perfection of the nerves and synapses. Another disagreed, and exclaimed that it had to have been a mechanical engineer who designed the human body. The system of levers and pulleys is ingenious. "No," the third student said, "you're both wrong. The human body was designed by an architect. Who else but an architect would have put a toxic waste line through a recreation area?" http://sciencejokes.blogspot.com.au/2007/03/jokes-darwin-evolution-creationist.html
mmm, sorry, perhaps that was in poor taste, and unkind to the IDists:(
http://www.lds.org/ensign/1988/01/the-book-of-mormon-is-the-word-of-god
Yes (to the joke which I've heard before but still is so correct).
Any statement to persuade that begins with "If" will present an hypothesis that eventually appears very logical. Just as many believers resort to the fallacy of
silence as evidence…..for whatever is proposed.
What do we accept around us that we take for granted? Who says we can trust any form of revelation – whether it be a prophet or a scientist?
What existed before the Big Bang? How could the entire universe, full of all the energy that can never be created or destroyed, just transformed, have come from nothing?
Who says time is linear? If we accept quantum physics, who says we can accept anything?
How do we really know the world is round and not a flat disk on the back of a turtle – who says you can trust the revelations of so-called scientists. Who says NASA really did land on the moon and that it wasn't all filmed in a studio audience?
If Y2K could be wrong, what else do we take as fact that could be wrong? How do we know Global Warming is real? Do scientists live within a community of faith, taking things for granted that they were taught, subjected to group think?
Who says I really exist? Who says I am not really in The Matrix and I think I am writing this on a computer whereas I am really in a computer? Who says I am not just part of a dream of God?
What makes a plane stay in the air? I know people say it is science, but how can I really trust that – who says it is not really invisible fairies?
These are questions that leave me with a sense of awe and wonder. To what extent do all we all rely on the relevations and opinions of others, that we take much for granted in the world around us, and are very much molded by group think? Given we cannot be experts in everything, to what extent is having faith an implicit part of the human experience – and are we hardwired for it?
After biologists discovered that only about 2% of our DNA actually encodes proteins, Susumu Ohno and David Comings independently coined the term "junk DNA" in 1972 to refer to most of the remaining 98%. Some biologists (such as Thomas Cavalier-Smith and Gabriel Dover) thought we might eventually discover functions for non-protein-coding DNA, but others (including Kenneth R. Miller and Richard Dawkins) seized on the notion of junk DNA as evidence for Darwinian evolution and against intelligent design — since a designer would presumably not have filled our DNA with so much junk, but centuries of mutations might have.
The recent findings from ENCODE and related projects are significant for several reasons. First, the results from over a thousand experiments — involving dozens of laboratories and hundreds of scientists on three continents, published simultaneously in dozens of articles in five different journals — are remarkably consistent. Second, by providing abundant evidence that 80% or more of our DNA is functional, the results have greatly expanded our biological knowledge and may shed valuable light on some diseases. Third, the results demolish the argument used by Richard Dawkins and some other Darwinists that most of our DNA is "junk," proving we could not have originated by design. As the journal Science put it, "Encode Project Writes Eulogy for Junk DNA
Even in 1972 there was some evidence that the idea of "junk DNA" was wrong, and evidence has been mounting ever since. After determining the sequence of the human genome in the 1990s, biologists embarked on several projects to analyze how it functions. Two such projects were ENCODE ("ENCyclopedia Of DNA Elements") in the U.S. and FANTOM (Functional ANnoTation Of the Mammalian Genome) in Japan. By 2007 a growing amount of evidence suggested that most of our DNA is transcribed into RNAs (the chemical intermediate between DNA and protein), and that many of those RNAs though not translated into proteins — may nevertheless be functional. That suggestion has now been confirmed.
Stephen C. Meyer argued in his 2009 book Signature in the Cell that highly specified DNA sequences are necessary to encode the functional proteins needed by a cell, and that the best explanation for those highly specified sequences is intelligent design rather than unguided evolution. And those are just the protein-coding portions of DNA; a similar (or even stronger) argument for design could presumably be made for the complex regulatory switches now being discovered in the non-protein-coding portions. In any case, it is clear that the argument against design based on "junk DNA" is no longer tenable.
Darrel,
Are you not feeling heard? I have lost track of how many times you have flogged this dead horse of junk DNA!
Let's put this to rest by giving you the argument. Let's say, you are right. Scientists got it wrong and there is less junk DNA than they thought. IN FACT, let's say there is no junk DNA, and that as time goes on this will be discovered.
Let us now say this, and the other points you raise are IRREFUTABLE evidence of a Designer. Cool.
Got it? Ok! Are you ready for the next vital and obvious question?
SO WHAT? Well, your job has just begun. You have used scientific data to demonstrate your Designer exists. Using the same, a posteriori approach, now tell me what your designer is like. Ooooops
We are back exactly where we were way up this thread. There is absolutely no defensible reason to justify sneaking the Bible back in as an authority to help you out, and if I recall you say you don't! (or was that Jack?)
If you are going to use nature to demonstrate a Designer exists, there is also plenty of evidence out there as to what that designer may be like. Need we go further? It's not very interventionist. It's not very obviously loving; it's very able to sit back while trillions of animals live, suffer, die, and go extinct; and millions of human type animals come and go on the scene. It's very able to wait millions of years for its process to mature. No. The same science you have depended on to prove the Designer also demonstrates an evolutionary process in that design. It also demonstrates incredible ages, suffering, chaos… no. No. Again, need to go further?
All I am saying is, please, please, just give us a break from this ID s#it until you can address the significant isssues of where it can logically lead you, and thus what in fact proving your case does NOT offer you. It offers no support for the Christian God or Creationist model in any current form. NONE.
This blog may be out of steam, but Chris said he'd be away for a week, so I'll just footnote this one.
It appears to me that Chris is suggesting that the question of origins is a theological question, not a scientific one? I agree, and that's why I am trying to get my church to apply Adventist Theology to the facts of origins. I will try to have blogs that more directly address this.
What Christian (great name mother gave you Chris, it's your doom!) says about ID tells us more about Chris than it does ID, and I'll let to go at that for this round. Dismissing ID as irrelevant on inconsequential is a foolish as demanding that creation days must be 24 solar hour days. Belief tarnishes reason on every side.
What would be good is the Church to even explore the theological implications what IF evolution were true, leaving the actual science of origins to the scientists. Simply making it a taboo subject, which in effect is the status within the SDA Church now, is hardly helpful.
Jack,
I don't really want to get stuck here again, but I will give you a response out of courtesy.
I am not saying the question of origins is a theological one. I do not say it is not either, but it is no less an scientific one, or a philosophical one. To limit it to theological would be to assume that there is no scientific answer/s or data forthcoming to the question. That is tantamount to a god of the gaps: we have no explanation; we expect no explanation – therefore God did it. It is not that many generations ago that people thought sickness was not a scientfic question either. ie you get sick you must have sinned!!
I have no problem with my name.
Dismissing ID as irrelevant is foolish? I am on record elsewhere as saying I actually have sympathy for ID. What I don't like, agree with, and have difficulty being gracious over is people who take things that can be significant pointers to ID and using them to jump to wild and indefensible theological conclusions that can never be justified by the most profound ID evidences if they do or were to exist. So, please note. I DO NOT Dismiss ID. I simply challenge IDists to stop making claims which go beyond the scope of what is justified by any ID examples.
Belief tarnishes reason? YES. That is why it took me 20 years for evidence to force its way through my belief to slowly awaken my reason! I know it cuts both ways, but the fact I moved from one to another position suggests it is not playing the role of "retaining" me in a position of comfort, ignorance, or denial. Rather, I am where I am in spite of its hold.
Welcome back. I am glad you do not take the Judge Johnny Jones position that because many ID proponents believe in a Designer that their science is just a religious front, and can be dismissed without dealing with the evidence. That is similar to saying that because President Obama's middle name is Hussein that any health care plan he comes up can be dismissed as Muslim propaganda or plot.
Obamacare may be a plot, but you can't just dismiss it out of hand without studying the details based on speculations about the motives behind it. Likewise with ID. I did go to spend time with the Youtube debate of Christopher Hutchins and Jay Richards, and again I was suprised that you characterized the ID position as "drivel". To me it was a theological discussion, and the only science was presented by Jay Richards. Mr. Hutchins was a consumate debator, but at least 99% of his points were theological. I have notes I can share with you privately if you want to see my analysis of that debate off line, drhoehn@msn.com is my email if you want to share yours with me.
Jack
Jack,
I've sent you an email. In response to part of your point above, it may be of value to say here that I agree we should not dismiss someone's science just because they believe in ID and may be using it as a front.
However, that science must stand up to scrutiny. The conclusions they draw from that science must also be tied to the science from which they "began". It does seem to me, as is obvious by my discussion with Darrel, that too many do use ID as a front. This is demonstrated by their drawing conclusions that are totally indefensible from the science they purport to begin with.
This is not to say the science is or is not valid. It is to say they import meaning into their science from elsewhere (bible), which produces conclusions not verifiable from the original "data" or "evidence".
Chris, I'm sure it has already been asked on this thread, which I didn't really get into, but why do you not seem to be equally concerned with the far greater number of evolutionary scientists who use science and evolutionary theory to advance atheism and philosophical naturalism?
The insidious ways in which truth, and reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom, can be employed should not be invoked to repudiate it. The fact that many want to make the leap from intelligent programming to God does not seem to me like a reasonable argument against I.D. theory as an intellectual discipline. Does it to you? If so, why not use the same type of argument against evolutionary theory?
"…why do you not seem to be equally concerned with the far greater number of evolutionary scientists who use science and evolutionary theory to advance atheism and philosophical naturalism?"
I think I have made my view clear on AT before: as I see it evolution does not prove atheism. If people wish to make assertion from the evidence, their reasons for doing so should stack up and be open to scrutiny in precisely the same way as should an IDist extending their evidence to traditional theism. If I don't appear to be concerned about it, it is because I am interested in finding ways to defend faith. I am not really concerned that an evangelistic atheist will undermine evolution by their over enthusiastic extension of the evidence to where it may not belong.
You may have missed my question relevant to this on Jacks thread "Why do things evolve".
Here it is:
"Nathan, perhaps you could give some examples of how/where people are using the evolutionary theory to take it beyond where its evidence suggests? ie, what conclusions are they coming to that are not justified and validated by the evidence or weight of evidence?"
Re your other question: "The fact that many want to make the leap from intelligent programming to God does not seem to me like a reasonable argument against I.D. theory as an intellectual discipline. Does it to you? If so, why not use the same type of argument against evolutionary theory?"
If I read that correctly: The equivalent, or opposite of making the "leap" from ID to traditional theism would be making the "leap" from evolution to Athiesm. This is exactly the focus of my question to you on Jacks other blog. You, and many others, DO use the fact that scientists make this "leap" as evidence against evolution. If there is no evidence within evolution to draw an atheistic conclusion it should not be drawn. If there is no evidence within ID to reach traditional theistic conclusions – such conclusions should not be made.
cb25 no email yet, please resend. drhoehn@msn.com
Thank you Chris, I just enjoy cutting edge science, especially
on genetics. I don’t post for anyone specifically.
Let me turn the question back to you Chris, what kind
of Creator God makes sense to you?
I urge you continue enjoying cutting edge science, Darrel. Just don't be too quick to accept explanations that do not follow from the scientific evidence.
No. I'm over people taking the easy option of counter questioning, and then attacking my answer/s.
You are typical of an entire ID industry out there that cries from the rooftops there is an ID, but fails to deal with the big issues of exactly what conclusions that does and does not justify by extension.
So, I will be happy to answer your question when "..you can address the significant isssues of where it can logically lead you, and thus what in fact proving your case does NOT offer you. "
ps. as of tomorrow I'm away for a week plus.
I suspect it is like all data (including the Bible): the conclusions depend very much on the methodology with which you approach the data. Part of that methodology is your presuppositions. Just as there is a 'hidden curriculum' in education, there is also one in science and theology. We should value those who bring what is usually hidden out into the open, rather than condemning them as we often do. The problem is, some things do not look as solid or as strong once exposed to the light as they did in the dark. In the minds of many Christians, to interpret the data in tandem with the Bible makes intuitive sense. But they miss the fact that they are assuming their understanding of the Bible is correct. It does, after all, pretty much 'hang together' well. It is disconcerting to discover that much of the coherence in the Bible is actually imposed on it by our presuppositions, and that other presuppositions (which may be as logical and 'biblical' as ours) can lead to very different conclusions. While not a scientist an dable to speak from experience, I suspect something similar is happenign with science.
Chris, what on earth is an ID industry?
Joe, what you are saying is, “don’t be quick to accept
explanations that don’t follow evolutionary evidence.”
No, actually I'm saying that you are falling for a "bait and switch" sales gimmick.
Darrel, "ID industry"?
Over here we will use terms like "The Tourist industry"; "A cottage industry" etc.
I see ID promoters through this lense: An industry bent on the promotion and pushing of Creation, but through a different vehicle. There's a link below to a letter which illustrates this idea that ID is just another form of creationism trying to weasel its way into the system.
Other examples include AIG, Creation Science – so called, Ken Ham's theme park etc.
So, what was my point? ID is too often used as this vehicle by Christian proponents who jump on any scrap of data they can find as "proof" of their Designer. They hide under the guise of being "scientific". However, trying to get an rational defense of what their Designer ultimately proves in the larger debate is hard, especially if they are not free to jump back to the Bible as if a Designer's existence by default "proves" the Bible's authority as well:
You are illustrating that very fact. …back to my question…?
http://www.ascb.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=356&Itemid=31
So what industry are you a part of Chris?
Chris, what is “the system” you refer to?
LOL @ this JEW Jack Hoen! Should Christians circumcise? Answer: NO! That was part of the Old Covenant, which no longer applies! Both Jesus and Paul the Apostle spoke against the practice of circumcision, Jesus speaking against the empty legalism of the Pharisees, Paul reiterating that it is not necessary for Christians.
But all this is moot for Adventists, because Seventh Day Adventists are NOT Christian! You are all a bunch of Jews and Jew-wannabes. Like this kike Jack Hoen. Every individual involved in the SDA cult is either a closet Jew, or a very stupid goy dupe. Jack the Jew Hoen presents himself as an Adventist so he could mislead his pet goyim. Being as “Doctor” Jack Hoen is a Jew-physician, of course he is going to shill for the practice. He even quotes the Jew-run World Health Organization. Best protection against HIV/AIDS? BULLSH!T! (All evidence contradicts that, you lying Heeb, notwithstanding, whatever superstitious gullible goy idiots you con.) The Jew shills who own and operate said organization sell it in Africa, where nearly everyone is Muslim or part of some oogah-boogah religion, so it’s not a hard sell. (Africa, where the average IQ is just short of 80, which explains how whacko cults like the Adventists gain adherents.)
And for those claiming a health benefit, who are you, lowly human to believe that you are smarter than (take your pick) hundreds of millions of years of evolution and/or God almighty?
Any “Christian” who genitally mutilates himself or any male under his custody is saying “F*** you!” to the Lord God for creating man the way he did, and to Jesus Christ for dying on the cross to do away with the Old Covenant.
[What kind of moronic dumb@ss “god” would create humans with foreskin only to demand removal? “DUH, hi, guys, my name is God, I’m mentally retarded and I eat paint and glue. I’m going to put lots of effort into creating foreskin so it could be painfully removed.” Is that what you Jew shills believe? Even Jews believe that circumcision is a SACRIFICE.]
So if you Sabbath-worshipping Christians want to let this yid doctor Jack Hoehn chop off part of your son’s God-given anatomy and then suck his bloody penis, I don’t know what to say. (And yes, Jews like Jack Hoen really do suck off babies after they have been circumcised.) Go on and follow this rat-faced Jew Jack Hoen, just don’t call yourself a Christian!
ADDENDUM: WHOOPS! I noticed that I misspelled the name of the Jew Jack Hoehn as “Hoen.” My apologies for the misspelling. Looks like “Hoehn” is a Germanisation of “Cohen” thus indicating that “Dr.” Jack Hoehn is an Ashkenazic Jew. Does not matter, and it does not change the fact that Jack Hoehn is a Jew phony who pretends to be a Seventh Day Adventist. But if you’re stupid enough to be a 7th Day Adventist, you’re probably nowhere near intelligent enough to see through Jewboy Jack Hoehn’s paper-thin disguise.
I say this every individual in the SDA cult is either:
* stupid
* utterly insane
* a phony and a liar
…or some combination of the above.
From his bio, we could determine that Jack Hoehn comes from a long-line of crypto-Jews. His parents, Gus and Olive, were Jews who outwardly presented themselves as Seventh Day Adventists, and so outwardly raised him as such, though secretly raising him as a Jew. He was born in Canada circa 1952, and claims to be circumcised. Were goyim genitally mutilated in Canada back then on bogus medical grounds? I know that the Jews imposed MGM on goyim en masse in Anglophone countries after WW2, out of fear of potential future Holocausts. Methinks he had a bris milah. He then was “baptized” in the SDA church at 13. (Was it before or after his bar mitzvah?) He also claims that he had his sons circumcised to prevent HIV. That is the most retarded crock of shit I ever heard!
…[So his sons won’t get HIV when they offer up their bungholes to African natives in exchange for converting them to the SDA cult?] NO! The real reason why this yid-physician who presents himself as an Adventist circumcised his sons was to keep the Covenant (in secret). And you can bet this lizard-eyed Jew Jack Hoehn sucked all of his sons off after he circumcised them. And now this Jew-kike is telling you to cut off part of your dick…
The truth is that the Seventh Day Adventists are a Jew project through and through! The movement was founded by the JEW Ellen White. Every 7th Day Adventist with two brain cells to rub together is a closet Jew, much too smart to believe any of the mind-rotting nonsense they preach. The rest are all mindless cretins, natural Shabbos Goyim. This is why the SDA cult is as powerful as they are, why they have anywhere near the money or influence in the world that they do.
Anybody paying attention to U.S. politics would see the alarming rise of Ben Carson, an Adventist. Anybody wonder why this no-name Negro is a rising star? Many of the powerful Jews think of him as their pet schwarza. They are counting on him to be a slavish Shabbos goy. “The last schwarza we elected was not loyal enough to Israel. Why get a Shabbos Goy when we can have a Goy who actually keeps Shabbos?”