Summer Time and Time
by Jack Hoehn
It’s summer time. Kids out of school, mom and dad have a few weeks off — so we roll to the lake, drive to the farm, and take another look at this big beautiful world we credit to an Intelligent Designer and Powerful Sustainer, who created time, amongst the rest of the amazing living machines he gave us to play with.
I met my siblings in Aspen, Colorado. The Subaru I drove to the airport, the Canadair jet I rode to Denver, the gondola I took up a Rocky mountain, and the bike I peddled along an Aspen trail, were all clearly designed and purposefully assembled. Each machine I used needed someone’s idea, required specific materials which were processed, fitted, and then assembled over a period of time.
What about earth, and the living things in it? What about the rocks and mountains, what about the lichens and mosses, the Traveler’s Gentian, the Fireweed, the Penstemon? Who designed the gigantic root we call Aspen which is a huge colony of trees joined by a common underground network of life? What about the bulldogs, English or French with rolling shoulders and bat ears? What about that beautiful woman riding at my side?
No one’s idea? Naked chance for materials? Unprocessed by fully random mutations? Assembled strictly on survival advantage? Then why isn’t everything as utilitarian and ugly as a Soviet apartment building? Why is earth and life on it, in fact, so very beautiful, supportive, generous, colorful, interdependent, and just plain fun? Why are the simplest, most primitive bacteria so programmed and designed?
Stephen Hawking’s latest book denying the Designer, still titles itself, The Grand Design! And like all physicists stumbles upon the obvious, “Our universe and its laws appear to have a design that both is tailor-made to support us, and if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration. That is not easily explained, and raises the natural question of why it is that way.”1 “The discovery relatively recently of the extreme fine-tuning of so many of the laws of nature could lead at least some of us some back to the old idea that this grand design is the work of some grand designer.” 2
And yes, some of us do find that the idea of a grand design having a Grand Designer does fit like a hand in a glove!3 We do believe that the Creator revealed in the Bible is the necessary and sufficient answer to the question, “Why is nature so intelligently designed?”
Our Creator also creates time. There is a “beginning.” And he calls the light, not “light,” but “day.” And he sets heavenly bodies for “seasons.” And he numbers the yom of creation.4
So as we look at his Aspen groves we also look at his time as recorded in the creation.
I am standing at about 9,000 feet elevation on July 6. 2012 on the ski mountain called Snowmass, part of the Aspen, Colorado resort in the Rocky Mountains. Down below me is a small 12 acre newly excavated but ancient lake, bulldozed out for a water reservoir for the resort and village of Snowmass in 2010. It is on a ridge between two river valleys, and is surrounded by massive peaks some over 14,000 feet high.
Figure 1 Ziegler Reservoir near Snowmass Village, CO.
Construction of the reservoir was suddenly halted in November 2010 when the bulldozers uncovered a huge bone. “…a pair of giant ribs flicked over the top of the (dozer) blade. Jesse (Steele) stopped the machine and hopped out to take a look. The ground in front of his blade was littered with big brown bones. Instead of getting excited, Jesse got scared…they began to gather the bones. They found a partial jawbone with an 8 inch long tooth. They found a tusk. They found big vertebrae. It was clear that this was a big skeleton. Joe…came over to the find, took one look, turned…and said, “This is not a cow!”5
Kirk Johnson from the Denver Museum of Nature and Science sent a team and discovered that this little lake was a trap and preservative for hundreds of ancient animals. Working against a construction deadline and the winters when snow would take over the territory for the skiers, they organized a team that took out over 5,426 fossilized remnants of ancient animals no longer living, but obviously part of the design of life we can still see today.
Elephants of two different kinds, from two different climates and food sources were found. Deepest in the filled in lake ( a lake made of ancient glacial moraine at its sides from the retreating glacier that formed it) were American Mastodons (scientific estimate 120,000 years ago) along with gigantic prehistoric Bison latifrons with massive horns 6 feet across, and giant Jefferson Ground Sloths the size of bears. Their bones were covered by layers of mud flowing from the surrounding mountains, filling the lake and turning it into a marsh (scientific estimate about 70,000 years ago). Here new species of a larger elephant called the Columbian Mammoth now got caught in the muddy marshes, along with other species not found in the deeper lake, camels and mule deer.
——————————————————————————————————————-
You can view this exciting recent discovery on the internet.
https://video.pbs.org/video/2183288240 — a preview
0:30 minutes
https://video.pbs.org/video/2192201845 — PBS news about the Snowmastedon,
8:40 minutes.
https://video.pbs.org/video/2191520252 — full NOVA “Ice Age Deathtrap”
53:00 minutes.
——————————————————————————————————————-
Now calculate time. The lake is made of glacial moraine. So it comes after the last ice age. Nothing here can be the result of a Noah-flood. We are at 9,000 feet. The lake was made by the glaciers that carved a post Noah-flood world. The lake contains generations of 2 different kinds of elephants that are not found together. Elephants with two different kinds of teeth–the deeper, older Mastodon has hard ridges for chewing branches and bark. The later Mammoth is bigger but has flatter grinding teeth for chewing grass.
Mastodon were not hunted because they lived before humans came to this area. Mastodons are older. Mammoths are relatively recent. Mammoths are found with arrows in them. The Mammoth bones in Snowmass found in upper layers of the later shallow lake had stones over them, suggesting they may have been submerged intentionally by humans to preserve the meat? An early form of refrigeration?
So calculate the time. Present, minus how much?
Subtract – When humans first appeared in North America and coexisted with Mammoths and Camels?
Subtract—When Mastodons and Ground Sloths pre-existed humans and Mammoths?
Subtract—When Glaciers covered Colorado, ground out the valleys in the Rockies, retreated and created Snowmass’s Ziegler Lake?
Now Subtract—the Rockies themselves. Clearly as you drive through the Rockies you see the layers of sediment laid down that are now thrust up and tilted into the sky. So if the layers of sediment you think were Noah-flood, then you need time for the hundreds of layers of sediment to turn into rock. For the rock to be uplifted from a sea-bed filled with fossils of sea creatures and sharks, into 14,000 + foot Rockies. Then for the ice age to fill them with glaciers capable of carving them as we see them today and making Snowmass’s Lake as they retreated…..
I know our brains are now swimming! I’m not trying to establish any particular date, but the bottom line for me is, you just can’t have the designing, creating the materials of the Rockies with their many animal fossils, tilting them up, carving them with an ice age, creating this little dangerous lake that captures and preserve different eras of animal life—in only 4,000 years.
You can do the parts starting with the ice age in the 120,000 years most scientists calculate. Or who knows perhaps if I tried really hard I might argue what I see just might have happened in 13,000 years, (although I’d have to go against a very lot of independently confirming evidence for the larger number).
But neither you nor I can honestly fit all this into just 4,000 years.
Therefore neither you nor I should force faithful, honest, godly, exploring, observing, thinking, praying, creationist Adventists to accept a 4,000 year post flood chronology as necessary for their salvation.
Once Adventists go on vacation, see the lake ourselves, view the actual bones in the Denver museum6, we say what is true is true. We will adjust our theology to truth, to reality, not clinging to idealized schemes of how we used to think, or wished we could think how it should have happened.
It’s vacation time! Leave your watches and your previous chronology at home. Just enjoy this wonderful intelligently designed world. Give time back to God who created it. He can have as much of it as he wishes to accomplish the intelligent planning, preparing, processing, assembly and sustaining of life on earth. Time is an issue for us, but it is not an issue for God.
Let science show us the Grand Design and let us show scientists (as we thank them for their many practical services to us all) our ideas about the Grand Designer.
Please stop forcing chronological impossibilities on our fellow church members, so scientists can again listen to us introduce them to the Ancient of Days7 who has all the time in this world and even more in the world to come.
References:
1Stephen Hawking, 2010, The Grand Design, p. 162.
2 Stephen Hawking, 2010, The Grand Design, p. 164. [My copy of the book says “…some of us some back…” I’m not sure if this is a typo for “…some of us to come back…”? ]
3 For a kind but robust exposure of Stephen Hawking’s missteps in his denial of a Designer, see John C. Lennox, 2011, God and Stephen Hawking.
4 yom is Hebrew for the light portion of time as opposed to the night portion of time; or one rotation about earth’s axis; or some specific but indefinite time, such as “The Day of the Lord” an age or era, such as we might say, “back in the day of the dinosaur”. (I am told there is no Hebrew word for age or era, other than yom?)
5 Kirk Johnson and Ian Miller, 2012, Digging Snowmastodon, Discovering an Ice Age World in the Colorado Rockies, page 8.
6 As you read this volunteers under scientific direction are working on these fossilized animal bones in the Denver Museum of Nature and Science. It’s well worth a visit to watch them work on this treasure trove of ancient animals.
7 Daniel 7.
It was a good article until you had to infuse it with your darwinian mindset. But hey its who you are so more power to you. However for me disbelieving a six day creation and a world wide flood is a deal breaker. By extention your belief in trhe resurrection is preferential. Do you believe in ressurection because of the overwhelming evidence for a ressurection or simply becuase it appeals to your sensibilities/ sense of purpose e.t.c What I am trying to say is why draw the line at the ressurection is it more belivable than a six day flood or a world wide flood?
Kind regards
Tapiwa Mushaninga
My sentiments exactly, Tapiwa. It's the blind leading the blind.
Tapiwa, I began this series by asking you not to call me a Darwinian. I believe that the short chronology of Creation is not true for the same reason I believe the resurrection of Christ is true, there is very solid evidence the earth the earth is old, there is very solid evidence Christ was seen alive. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth is my anchor. (The chronology of when he created is a detail.) That Christ died for our sins, that he was buried, and that he was raised is my anchor. (The date of when it happened is a detail.)
"there is very solid evidence the earth the earth is old . . . ."
What solid evidence? The evidence from dating methods which have been shown to be inconsistent and faulty time after time? The evidence that is based on assumptions which cannot be proved?
This gets to some of the crux of the problem. I suspect Jean you are not a scientist – neither am I. No doubt if you and I are honest, we can find a number of books, publications and websites that advocate both sides. How then do we, laypeople, assess such evidence in the absence of going and doing a PHD in biology and geology ourselves?
I haven't really come to a definitive answer myself, which is why I would say I am an 'agnostic' on the issue of the age of the earth. On the one hand if I were in a jury box, and the prosecution had 99 expert witnesses said categorically, as a matter of scientific fact, by use of DNA and other measurements, said the accused had killed the victim, I doubt there would be a jury in the nation that would acquit on the evidence of the other 1 dissenting expert witness. However, we have all seen examples where people were wrongly convicted, or so-called experts were wrong, such as Y2K – remember those billions of dollars wasted on upgrading all those computers for the year 2000.
The best we laypeople can do, and I include theologians in that who are no more equipped to tell us the scientific age of the earth, is to adopt a ‘precautionary principle’ or ‘pascal’s wager’ approach.
No doubt people on both ‘sides’ will again find such a ‘compromise’ approach insufficient, but there are always extremists on every side of a debate in every religion. Extremism is rarely useful in winning over our opponents – it just edifies our own side and gives rise to extreme action of self-fulfilling martyrdom. Being truly open-minded means being willing to explore the what IF in the absence of conclusive evidence either way.
So the Grand Designer created all these creatures, now fossilized, and decided
they were not "good" and decided to wipe them all out?
"Once Adventists go on vacation, see the lake ourselves, view the actual bones in the Denver museum6, we say what is true is true. We will adjust our theology to truth, to reality, not clinging to idealized schemes of how we used to think, or wished we could think how it should have happened."
A bold and optimistic statement of hope. Haven't SDA leaders taken summer treks to other fossil sites? Did that change the church's official position? It really doesn't matter what is seen, but what is expressed by official statements. This will not happen in our lifetimes unless there are radical changes. (Hint: I'm sure Cliff Goldstein on seeing this would immediately write of his new position as now a long-age creationist.)
Nice post Jack! The fossil record is very intriguing and suggests great epics of time when we were not around. Never do we find human fossilized remains with dinosaurs. I find it interesting that those of us that look at genesis as an ancient story reflecting the biblical writers experiences and wonder how "it all began" can be so impugned by the literalists. If Jean and Tapiwa want to call us "blind" they are entitled to their blindness also. All the overwhelming evidence simply dismissed with Gods magic.
Elaine, each Creation Day can be seen as a conflict between darkness which starts each Day, and light which ends each Day. For example the second Creation Day starts with no atmosphere which was not so good and ends with a firmament, which is good. The third Creation Day starts with only water and air which is not good enough, and ends with earth and plants which is better. Clearly creation was progressive, additive, and not really good enough till earth was ready for the introduction of mankind. Only then at the end of Creation Day 6 was it "very good," and ready for worship of the Creator to begin.
You and I all our lives can see a Controversy between good and evil in nature. It appears from the geologic record that this same Controversy has been going on for a long time during the creation events on earth. Theologically using Adventist terms, the Great Controversy is Greater than we used to think! The Greater Controversy began in heaven during the planning of creation. And when God's opponents were cast out of heaven where did they come? To earth. So in short I see the Creation Days themselves as a continuation of the Great Controversy. The fall of Lucifer explains to me why good and evil has been demonstrated in creation, not only today, but from the Beginning. Lambs were slain not merely from the fall of Adam, but "from the foundation of the earth". Lucifer was murdering not from the fall of Adam, but "he was a liar and murderer from the Beginning."
Forgive this very tentative peek into a big subject. And please I am not trying to convince you, dear dedicated skeptic. I am just trying to explain to you that I have been thinking about the issues you raise. Please be patient as I take time to explore these questions more fully in the future. If God takes a long time to create, it may take us a long time to understand when and how, and why he did it the way he has. That is why requiring 52 Sabbaths a year to remember a creation more complicated than 144 hours of magic, makes more sense to me than it used to! There is a lot more to think about here, than could be easily explained in a Cradle Roll sandbox!
Great Jack – as always. I totally agree.
The Great Controversy theme answers a very good way to offer a viable theistic evolutionary theology. We all know Lucifer rebelled before Adam and Eve sinned – as there was a snake in the Garden. We also know that the earth and nature itself was already somewhat fallen before Adam and Eve sinned – by evidence of the wilderness outside of the Garden.
Creationists also admit that the earth and nature have been warped by sin. All we really seem to be disputing is whether that warping of nature occured before or after Adam bit the fruit. The Bible itself suggests it was before.
I should have said 'Young Earth Creationists' not Creationists. Point being the term 'Creationist' has been somewhat hi-jacked by YEC.
Jack,
Unless someone has heard, and accepted the premise of the Great Controversy as a model for explaining all of earthly and human life these explanations would never see the light of day. The average person on the street has no idea of such a theory of the natural world which everyone observes where a figure called Lucifer experienced a "fall" from heaven and is the foundation for this good vs. evil dichotomy. This can never be substantiated from the Bible only but must have EGW to add her fictional talents, without credit to Milton..
This makes sense to someone who has accepted it, just as Scientology makes sense to Tom Cruise or Catholicism makes sense to Catholics. We cannot know; there is no evidence that there was once an idyllic world where humans lived, for an indeteterminate period of time before it became a place where there was death, sickness and pain. Where is the evidence, other than in a very fertile imagination?
All we can possibly know is the world as it is now, and by studying geology, archaeology, paleoanthropology, there is evidence of a much older earth than has been promoted by Adventists, but there is no evidence of a paradise at one time with no death or sickness.
In all this subject, completely ignored is the creation account in Genesis 2 which is far different from that in Genesis 1. Why choose only the first chapter to be elucidated while the second is completely forgotten? In the second chapter, the earth has a very different order of creation: man is created first and woman was created last. Plus, there is no mention of God's resting on the 7th day.
As to God's "requiring 52 Sabbaths a year to remember Creation" there was no mention of requiring a Sabbath observance until Sinai, approximately two millennia later.
The ONLY reason the six-day creation is so important to Adventists is because there is no record of resting on the 7th day required of man UNTIL Sinai. The Fourth commandment explains that the earth was created in seven days but it was the very first mention and reason for its observance, not a single account of anyone observing it from Adam to Moses. If the story in Genesis 2 is taught that eliminates any idea of a sabbath since creation.
Troll reply Elaine. Who cares what the average person on the street thinks – they aren't Jack's auidence. Jack's audience are Seventh-day Adventists who have heard of the Great Controversy and do understand that concept as part of their theological world view, including the Sabbath.
Elaine, your denials of Sabbath really are off my topic, we are discussing how to understand the facts of nature in the context of Adventism, so perhaps you will defer a discussion of your concerns to another blog?
The faithful conservative Adventist Christian does need to understand that accepting a long term chronology for creation is not the same as denial of creation, denial of the Sabbath, denial of the truth of Genesis 1,2,3, etc. You have different problems than most Adventists, and they are not caused by accepting the testimony of science. It is possible that denial of the truths of science by our church may have opened the door of skepticism to you as it has to many others. I am not writing to fight all skepticism, I am fighting to close the door to skepticism that comes with denial of the truths in science by a false Biblicism. I'm trying to make it easier to not become you!
Today you are without excuse for touting evolution. There are many scientific centers by dedicated Christian scientists who can refute evolution quite well… If you CHOOSE not to access them or believe them-well that is what is in your heart.
But to use a site with the name "Adventist" to espouse your cowardly worldview-which has the spiritual bending to the temporal rather than the other way around-is rather – well- pathetic in the 21st century.
Well stated, JaNe. But be careful. Others have had their posting privileges revoked for saying things like that.
Yes Jane you caught us! Heretics! Touting evolution. So now what are you going to do? A-today is a contemporary website and we can freely speak out on these types of subjects. Adventist theology needs to undergo some evolution just as Catholic theology underwent changes once the Copernican model of the solar system was shown to be correct. Do you honestly think the "spiritual" can "bend" the temporal? The fossil record is clear. Human remains are never found at the deeper levels defining the Jurassic and Triassic periods. The record suggests we were not around. We certainly were wandering the planet during the times that mastodon, mammoth and saber tooth cat existed. Thus, maybe you can invent "creation epochs"? Some Christians do aspire to that type of thinking.
The layering of the fossil record has been reasonably and logically explained by creationists many times, but those with a strong committent to evolution don't like to accept explainations by creationist scientists. It doesn't take too much logic to figure out that the organisms which were less mobile would end up in the bottom layers, and those with the most mobility would be higher up. Oh, yeah, you guys don't believe there was a global flood which would account for the fossil layers. Guess, I can't help you.
It doesn't take too much logic to figure out that the organisms which were less mobile would end up in the bottom layers, and those with the most mobility would be higher up. Oh, yeah, you guys don't believe there was a global flood which would account for the fossil layers. Guess, I can't help you.
Ohhhhh Lordy. If I didn't know you were serious, Jean, I'd say you were trolling. There is nothing about the statement above that is correct.
True, AToday lets you say anything you like, even challenging orthodox Adventist notions on creation, Sabbath, homosexuality, gender etc – as they should. Of course, if you challenge their challenging, that of course if a very different story, and as Jean rightly warns – watch out.
Not all opinions are treated equally here. Ultra-liberal or ex-Adventists ones are tacitly accepted, with people told simply to ignore them if they disagree. Conservative opinions are routlinely treated with scorn and direct and indirect personal attack.
P.S. I am not a liberal, but have experienced such attacks myself. I have simultaneously been called a bully and senstive-timid at the same time, even for mentioning this apparent bias.
Jack
I believe you are inconsistent with your assertion. you say there is no scientific evidence for a six day creation or a world wide flood fair and fine. Is there scientific evidence for a ressurection? has it been tested and done in a lab? I still maintain you are inconsistent and preferential. the chronology of when he created is a detail that is given in the bible. the date of christ's ressurection is not. Sorry for calling you darwinian. If it gets you through the day but (whatever you want to call yourself fine its your prerogative) how do we move on from here a genuinely see your understanding of creation as a clear and present danger to adventism you believe it will enhance adventism. By the way I am a your person below 25 so the whole younger generation supports you is kind of a dud. I believe your views are inconsistent within themselves and are incompatible with adventist christianity. thats my view so now what? I also do not believe in adventist relativism where all view points hold equal validity.
Is there a date for creation? Funny, I never saw it mentioned in the Bible; nor a date for the Resurrection. Oddly, no humans saw either event.
"the Resurrection. Oddly, no humans saw either event."
Roman soldiers were not human? That's interesting. I can believe that they behaved inhumanly sometimes, but I believe they were Homo sapiens–unless they evolved separately from the rest of us.
Why do you take the third-hand account of anonymous Roman soldiers at face value but categorically dismiss the first-hand claims of people who swear they've been abducted and probed by UFOs?
Its a funny thing that noone is able to answer my questions on this blog and yet many calimed to be refined and educated, yet you are unable to put acroos valid logical reasons for your assertions. Are you admitting that you have been silenced by a young boy from Africa? I want to reiterate my question again because Jack believes that Science should shape our understanding of adventism and I asked him if it shaped his understanding of ressurection because a ressurrection is scientifically impossable yet he believes in it. on the other hand he believes shaky psuedo science on origins and the flood. I still maintain that he is inconsistent and disingenious on that front.
I would say science (or to use the term used in Paul's day 'philosophy', which included both physhics and metaphysics) can guide us as a 'truth' but only a 'lesser light'. Tradition, prophecy (i.e. Ellen White), logic/reason and also subordinate. This is how sola scriptura is usually designed, which Adventists claim to prescribe to. As Clement of Alexandria said, philosophy should be the handmaiden of theology. Science is nothing but natural law or the eden principle described by Paul in Romans 2.
Even the Bible is not technically 'Truth' or the 'Word of God', because John 1 itself makes clear that only Jesus is that. However, the Bible is certainly the premier formative factors, because it tells us the most about Jesus, the Truth.
Thus, if science directly contradicts, silent or incompatible with the Truth of Jesus, as described in the Bible, then the Truth of Jesus prevails. Therefore, as science cannot tell us anything about the nature of life outside of the physical laws of the universe, including what happened or existed before space and time were even created, or what happens after death or at the end of the universe, it can offer us nothing on such subjects as the resurrection of Jesus.
However, if there are two possible interpretations of the Bible, one which conforms to science, and one which contradicts science, then obviously the interpretation of the Bible that conforms with science should be preferred. For example, there are Bible texts that suggest the world could be flat and at the centre of the universe – others that it may be a sphere. It is logical that we should adopt the biblical interpretation now well established by science – that the world is round. Whilst doing otherwise seems absurd, there was a time when Christians did not do this – ask Gallileo.
Thus, the problem isn't nor has it ever been the Bible. The problem has and always will be our flawed or limited understandings of the Bible. Even when we are not 'wrong', Paul makes it clear that at best we only see the limited truth as if through a glass or mirror. Ellen White says much the same with notions of progressive revelation and present truth.
Is that 'refined and educated' enough for you?
Read Lennox's book on 'Seven Days that Changed the World' for a better explanation.
What you've done, in a round about way, is to elevate science above Scripture. And you've set up another straw man and knocked him down. The Bible doesn't say the eath is flat anymore than it says the sun revolves around the earth. It speaks as we do when we say the sun rises and sets, knowing full well that it does no such thing, but, rather, the earth rotates on its axis. But it's awkward to say it that way, so we say it rises and sets.
When is comes to Genesis 1-11, there are not several ways to understand it. That illusion exists only because those who have more faith in science (so-called) than in Scripture, have caved into the prevailing theories about origins; and so they have, without justification, invented alternative ways of understanding Genesis.
Jean I am not sure how you can say I was elevating science about scripture when I made it explicitly clear that I was not doing that. I didn't say the Bible said categorically that the world was flat – I said it was ambiguous. Most Jews and Christians in ancient times did believe the world was flat and centre of the universe. You can pretend all you like this is not the case, but as a matter of well-known historical fact it is – as demonstated by Copernicus and Gallileo.
The Roman Catholic Church and others relied on various texts including Isaiah 11:12; Revelation 7:1; Job 38:13; Jeremiah 16:19; Psalm 104:5; Psalm 93:1; Psalm 96:10; and Ecclesiastes 1:5. No doubt almost all Christians and Jews today will say talk of the earth's 'four corners' or it being 'immovable', are figures of speech. But in Copernicus and Gallileo's time, the RC Church took them literally – on pain of torture and death.
Gen 1-11 can be understood in several ways. Even the word 'day' (yom) can be understood in different ways, and does not necessarily mean a 24-hour period. Even in Gen 1 itself uses the word 'day' to mean 12-hours (God naming the day light); not 24-hours.
The Bible also doesn't say the world is 6,000 years old. That is based on a calculation of chronologies, but not realising sometimes these chronologies skip generations (e.g. compare Jesus' chronology in Gospels compared with the OT). This notion of being 6,000 years old is read-into the text – it isn't in the text itself.
Moreover, there are several aspects of Gen that are absurd if the word 'day' is read as a 24-hour period. For example:
As to all these problems with the 24-hour 'day', you simply gloss over all commit your own theological gymnasitc to justify them. You therefore do not simply read Gen in a 'literal' manner.
Again, the problem is not with the Bible. The problem is with how human beings interpret the Bible. The distinction may be lost on you, but it is important.
?Does science say a resurrection is impossible, or simply that there is no scientific evidence that it has happened? They are two different things.
Stephen Ferguson
Thats the main point, you are just as inconsistent as Jack. What criteria do you use to separate the truths that can be conformed by science and those that are above science? Why criteria do you use to say ressurrection is above science and Six day creation is not. nowhere in the bible is there even a hint of a long winding evolutionary creation even atheistic theologians attest to this! A person who interprets the bible to suggest long evolutionary creation to me comes to the Bible with 5 tons of bias!
I am not anti science, Science has its place and sphere. however for "scientists" to undermine the ceative power of God which is a bilical truth that permeates throughout all scripture is for me at least is unacceptable. A creation is not just some obsure concept in a few places in the bible but is reaffirmed again and again in the bible.
Let me articulate it this way Stephen who made you or anyone else arbitrator on which biblical truths should be confirmed by science and which should not?
Science can tell us nothing about the resurrection – science is not about what IS, it is about what humans can OBSERVE. Science is not Truth; it is only truth. However, Romans 2 makes it clear it is truth. Therefore, science has no benefit or utility on the subject of life after death.
Adventists use 'science' all the time as a 'lesser light' in supporting ambiguities in the Bible. Science doesn't just mean biology, chemistry or other physical sciences – it also means social sciences such as history, archaeology etc. Adventists use 'science' to support our theology every time we run a health seminar, or run a Digging Up the Past evangelistic programme. Even the Great Controversy, which is being distrubted in a mass campaign, is full of 'science' in the form of history.
Science DOES NOT OVERRIDE the Bible. But to the extent that the Bible is ambiguous, and much of it is, science is a legitimate 'lesser light'. If is disingenuous to deny that Adventists use science all the time to support our own views.
'Does science say a resurrection is impossible, or simply that there is no scientific evidence that it has happened?'
How could science say anything other than that it is impossible. It can't be proved in the lab. It can't be tested. So, from a purely scientific point of view, it would have to be labeled "impossible," because science (as it is commonly understood) "cannot allow a divine foot in the door." Unfortunately they won't apply that same standard to evolution, which also can't be tested in the lab, and for which there is no hard evidence.
Science doesn't say it is impossible – say merely says it hasn't been observed. There is a world of difference. Science admits it can't answer what existed before space and time even existed at the Big Bang, yet scientists have to admit that there was 'something' that existed otherwise our universe would not exist. Thus, as a matter of absolute Truth, something existed before the Big Bang – science just says it can't ever observe what it was.
Can I ask you, do you believe in vaccination of children? On what basis? Do you believe the world is round, even though you have never personally been in space? Are you relying on the word of 'experts' who have seen the world from space? Our world is surrounded by science, and you do believe in it every single day of your life.
The truth, is, you are just picking and choosing. I don't believe science and the Bible contradict. When there is an apparent contradiction, it may be science; however, it may also be our previous interpretation of the Bible was wrong.
Gotta love the vehement disdain for science. It's so much fun to see basic psychological precepts validated in the field (in this case, hostility at that which risks toppling one's world view).
Gotta love the vehement disdain for science. It's so much fun to see basic psychological precepts validated in the field (in this case, hostility at that which risks toppling one's world view).
Does science really say dead people cannot be brought back to life? Aren't "clinically dead" people revived by physicians every day?
And what about fossil evidence and genomic evidence–is that nothing more than "chopped liver?"
Science does not require all evidence to be replicable in a lab. Where do you get such notions?
"Does science really say dead people cannot be brought back to life? Aren't "clinically dead" people revived by physicians every day?"
It depends on how one defines death. To be accurate, death is that point beyond which no one can be resuscitated–except by supernatural means.
A nifty trick! Excellent psychological agility! Just define the question away by asserting "supernatural means." What else would we expect?
Do you have a better definition of death?
Hi Jean,
Aside from the stories in the Bible, can you point us to an instance in which somebody has been "supernaturally" resuscitated?
Thanks!
Yes, but you wouldn't believe it. I know of at least 2. One was Diamondola, back in the early 1900's. The other one was in one of the missionary books (I'm sure they are all suspect and unrealiable). I've forgotten which book it's in.
I'm not dismissing them out of hand, having no information, but naturally I'm incredulous. What about those two incidents leads you to believe that they involved supernatural intervention? And I hope you have something more than "well, the guys who wrote the book swear it was supernatural…", because if that's sufficient, I have a few books to share with you as well detailing alien abductions, lizard men, bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, Elvis, Tupac, and remote viewing involving time travel to Mars one million years in the past.
I can't prove it. I wasn't there. But, having read the book about Diamondola, I have no reason to suspect that it was fabricated. There were several witnesses, including the women who were preparing her for burial. Rigor mortis had already set in. She eventually emigrated to the United States and died in 1990, at the age of 95. But, if these folks were really dead (by the above definition), then only supernatural intervention could have brought them back.
Yeah, that's sort of what I figured.
If you read the exact same story, but instead of "supernatural resuscitation" she was brought back by a tall, thin green man with large black eyes who descended from the sky in a flying saucer, you'd totally dismiss it. Yet you see, quote, "no reason to suspect that it was fabricated" as is because it supports your preexisting belief in a God. Little green men would violate that belief… and yet the evidence in both scenarios is identical.
But even that aside, billions upon billions of people have died and remained dead despite the prayers of their loved ones. Yet you read an old story about ONE person coming back to life somehow, and conclude not that it's more likely that the witnesses were mistaken, but that it must be evidence of magical powers (call them supernatural if you'd like, it's magic because you can't explain it other than "god can do anything").
A mind with a healthy dose of skepticism would question their account in light of those billions of people who haven't arisen. An indoctrinated, compromised mind would reach out and cling to any evidence it can find to support its indoctrination no matter how tenuous the evidence and how absurd the conclusion reached.
Jack,
I appreaciate the thought you put into this blog. You did a marvelous job illustrating not only how obvious some OE evidence is, but also how it OE issues fit with the spiritual circumstances we find ourseleves in and how that relates to a "good" designer, God.
Yes, Rudy is right. Thank you Jack!
Jack Hoehn
If you are not careful you might find out you acting the part of Jeroboam. I do not question your sincerity but error is not less dangerous because its propagator is sincere in fact in most cases it is even more dangerous! I am sure you are a nice person and would actually advise me on a lot of issues (I am African I respect my elders) but on this issue I'm sorry but I would rather Obey God
Kind regards
Tapiwa Mushaninga
Maybe Jack is a Paul, who realises the new fundamental truth; and you one of the judaizers? Maybe Jack is Jeremiah, giving the message no one wants to hear, the 'defeatist' message that our understanding of the world has and will be turned upside down. Maybe you and the rest are the false prophet of Hananiah, telling Israel, 'nothing to see here people, nothing to see here, all is good and there is no danger…'
Jack, yours is a nicely written piece, recognizing, as it does, both transcendent beauty and empirical evidence.
Stephen you're deflecting my question and are swimming in semantics
You have two issues that supposedly cannot be corraborated by Science i.e a six day creation and the ressurection of Christ. On what objective basis do you believe one and reject the other? Joe Erwin says this is a beautiful article as it recognises empirical evidence but how come Jack, Joe and Stephen do not logically follow the empirical evidence on regards to the ressurection of Christ. their selective use of Science is inconsistent and they cannot show me how their belief is consistent.
They are now resorting to affirming each other and evading and deflecting my questions.cute They are in what I have coined "the inescapable dilemna of theistic evolutionists" The irony in all of this is that there is actually an alternative scientific model to corraborate a six day creation and a world wide flood. There is no model I am privy to that can explain the ressurection yet they believe in this one! I believe if they were honest to themselves and foolowed all the empirical evidence there is no way they could believe in ressurection and not a six day creation and a world wide flood. An honest consistent individual will either accept all or reject all. the middle ground theistic evolutionists are trying to find is proving very elusive.
you can continue to console yourselves or have party or start a theistic evolutionist anonymous. It will not make it biblical, logical,rational.
I will fianlly end with the words of Luther "Unless therefore I am convinced by the testimony of Scripture or by the clearest reasoning, unless I am persuaded by means of the passages I have quoted, and unless they thus render my conscience bound by the word of God, I cannot and I will not retract, for it is unsafe for a Christian to speak against his conscience. Here I stand, I can do no other; may God help me. Amen."
Kind regards
Tapiwa Mushaninga
Tapiwa, on what basis do you think that the legs of iron are Rome, the toes of iron and clay Europe, the lamb-like power America, and the little horn the Papacy? None of these things can be found just from reading the Bible, because the Bible is ambiguous. They require the utilisation of science (i.e. human observation, including history and archaeology) as lesser lights. Are you saying then that science has no place as a lesser light – because if you are, I would respectfully submit that is a hypocritical position, because you use science all the time to help you interpret scripture.
The scriptures do say creation was in six days ('yom'). But scripture does not explicitly say those 'days' were 24-hour periods. You are guessing that is means that. In fact, in other places the Bible actually says that a day to God specifically isn't a 24-hour period – it is like a 1,000 years.
Science doesn't affirm the reason for the creation of the universe – it has no answers. Yet I do believe something existed before the universe was created don't you – because the Bible suggests it was God? I likewise believe in the resurrection of Christ because the Bible says so – even though science can't prove or disprove it.
If the Bible categorically said the creation of the earth happened in 6×24 hr periods, then I would agree that it doesn't matter what science says; the Bible must prevails. But the Bible doesn't say that at all – it is ambiguous. Because it is ambiguous, we can and should use lesser lights.
"The scriptures do say creation was in six days ('yom'). But scripture does not explicitly say those 'days' were 24-hour periods. You are guessing that is means that. In fact, in other places the Bible actually says that a day to God specifically isn't a 24-hour period – it is like a 1,000 years."
Methinks you do greatly err, not knowing the Scriptures or the Hebrew language. No guessing is involved when stating that yom in Genesis 1, means a literal, 24 hour day. The reason for that (which is either conveniently ignored, or unknown by many) is that elsewhere, whenever yom is used as it is in Genesis 1, it always, and without exception, refers to a literal 24 hour day. I don't know how one can get around that inconvienient truth. To assume that Gen. 1 is the only exception, goes against all the rules of exegesis. The burden of proof is upon those who would have us believe that it is the only exception.
What would a day have been before the sun was created?
Exactly! Without there being any sun, day 24-hour day is meaningless. There can't be a literal evening or a literal morning can there?
The reason for that (which is either conveniently ignored, or unknown by many) is that elsewhere, whenever yom is used as it is in Genesis 1, it always, and without exception, refers to a literal 24 hour day.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The first use of the word 'yom' is in Gen. 1:5, when God called the light 'day' (yom). That meaning of 'day' was 12-hours (the daylight), not 24 hours. So you even see way at the beginning of Gen that day doesn't always mean a 24-hour period.
The elsewhere makes clear that a day to God is not the same as a God to mankind. On what basis do you say this 'day' in creation means a human day, not a God day? As it is God creating, not mankind, surely it makes more sense for it to be a God day?
Deliberate obfuscation, or mere ignorance? Let me make it simple. The formula "the evening and the morning were the first day," second day, third day, etc., is what I am talking about. That way of using yom always refers to a literal 24 hour day. Your example in v. 5 uses yom in a different way. I haven't been able to find my original source, but that way of using yom is found elsewhere and always means a 24 hour day. Context and how the word is used are key factors. And there is no reason to understand it otherwise–other than the fact that it isn't politically correct to do so.
"If the Bible categorically said the creation of the earth happened in 6×24 hr periods, then I would agree that it doesn't matter what science says; the Bible must prevails. But the Bible doesn't say that at all – it is ambiguous. Because it is ambiguous, we can and should use lesser lights. "
And that's where you are wrong, Stephen. The Bible is not in any way ambiguous on this subject. I've just explained why, but something tells me that you either won't believe it, or will try to explain it away.
I do not believe God wants us to accept what is clearly proven to be wrong. I don't believe that creation in 6 days has been conclusively proven to be wrong, but I do believe that if it is, then we need to reexamine how we interpret Gen 1, because believing anything simply because we believe the Bible says so, against all the evidence, is not faith but stupidity.
Agree and two points in agreement:
1. Why is there so much dogmatism on both sides of the debate? I agree with you, but I bet both extremes of this debate would strongly disagree with any statement that the matter has yet to be proven one way or the other.
2. We need to realise the Bible is not nor ever is the problem – we are the problem. If the Bible seems incorrect on a subject, it is usually the person reading the Bible that is wrong, not the Bible itself.
We need to realise the Bible is not nor ever is the problem – we are the problem. If the Bible seems incorrect on a subject, it is usually the person reading the Bible that is wrong, not the Bible itself.
I'm sorry, Stephen, but that is such a WEIRD position to take. You're willfully abdicating your most precious "gift" — your ability to reason — in favor of TOTAL, unquestioning loyalty to a 2,000 year old book for NO reason other than that said book SAYS it's infallible.
That blows my mind. Aside from perhaps a child dying in a fire or something along those lines, I can't think of anything more sad. It's nothing short of tragic. Questioning the reality around us has led to EVERY human achievement since the dawn of time (which wasn't, according to the very real evidence, 6-10 thousand years ago). Men dared to question whether we could go to the moon, and they put us there. Yet here you are turning blind servitude and ignorance into virtues. Un-effing-real.
I have given you reasons from scipture; I have given you reasoning – you are just acting like the Thesalonicans and not the Bereans.
I appreciate that people here are stating what they believe to be true. A number of challenges are offered, by people on various sides of various issues, but it seems to me that we are playing an unfair game. At least, it is not a "zero-sum game," in the sense that the participants differ in how much they have invested and how valuable "wins" or "losses" are.
For example, I have very little investment and don't feel that I have anything to lose (or win). I'm not really much interested in arguing about any of these issues–mostly I just counter assertions that I consider inaccurate; but, of course, we occasionally get into "does not, does too" exchanges that probably do nothing for anyone. But, you see, I am under no mandate to change anyone's mind to my point of view. Some here take seriously that they have been ordered to spread the "truth" they hold to everyone–so they are obligated to try to win the arguments in which they participate.
Then we see such assertions as "An honest consistent individual will either accept all or reject all." Does that seem valid to others here?
Jean’s comments that “The evidence from dating methods [has been] shown to be inconsistent and faulty time after time? Yes, that is true: Of the thousands of times that well-established dating methods have been applied over the last couple of decades in a number of disciplines,, they have been found to be faulty a few percent of the time. Here we have another case of where YECs/YLCs believing in the 1-2% of the evidence and ignoring the 98-99%. I hope that is not the way in which Jean likes to base her opinions in other areas.
Also, It appears that I can't read well in my old age. I can't find the words "Darwinian" or "evolution" in Jack's blog text. Perhaps Tapiwa and Jean could help me find these words.
Here we go again on the same issue, the same debates, and similar answers. I often question the relevance of it–we won't change our ideas. But I suppose it is a kind of fun game.
What does it matter, after all? Can we really know? Were there any human observors to make it scientific one way or the other?
Maybe it is the meaning of the creation story that makes it true rather than how it actually happened. I like to think it did happen in six days, but have no proof for that. By human study of the laws that exist in this dimension/universe, it could not happen. But could there have been other laws in that world?
What is time to God? Does it exist at all? If it doesn't what difference does it make if the ancients thought it was six days–maybe it was in their dimension/universe. When did earth time begin? Was it in Eden or after sin? Has our local universe always moved at the same speed as today? Could there have been a creation attempt or mutation by an adversary? This is too complex with myriads of alternatives that humans haven't discovered. But speculation is part of the fun. Just don't take it too seriously.
I agree. For me, the bottom line is that God is the creator. The rest is just minor details and I don't see the point of endless arguments over things no one can prove.
I somewhat agree with you Kevin; EXCEPT for the fact that Jack, Erv, Chris, Joe et al are adamant that the OE/evolution, or whatever, has actually been proven.
I agree with you that, just as with the Genesis creation narrative, these are “things no one can prove.” Tell them.
(Or were you only referring to Genesis?)
To me it illustrates how people on both 'extremes' of this debate are just as dogmatic as each other. Some insist we must believe the world was created in 6×24 hr days and fools if we don't. Others insist we must accept science, which supposedly says the world can't be created in 6×24 hr days, and we are fools if we don't believe that.
I agree with Kevin and adopt neither the 'liberal' nor the 'conservative' but the 'libertarian' position. I am no scientist, and I find it frankly impossible to weigh up the evidence, because for every voice there seems to be a counter-voice. For that reason, I remain an agnostic on the issue, although I remain open-minded to both possibilities.
I agree that the important point is that God is the creator. I know many people find that 'lack of decision unacceptable,' but I find their own dogmatism to be just as unacceptable. Imagine if we had a church that was actually open to dialogue. The problem is, when YEC conservatives see just as how dogmatic YEC liberals are on the issue, is it any wonder that they see OEC as a threat to be defended against at all cost?
Just to weigh in on this again…. I'm not one of those people who claim that it has been PROVEN that there is no God or no creator. Much, much, much remains to be learned, and even after much more is learned, more will remain unknown than is known.
Some things can, however, be falsified–found to be so inconsistent with the evidence that they are impossible to believe without engaging in wild mental gyrations intended to sustain belief in the incredible. YEC is so profoundly out of sync with all evidence that it is incredible, unless one denies or refuses to look at the evidence.
I do not claim to KNOW how life began. I have some pretty flexible ideas about what probably happened. But it doesn't bother me at all if your ideas on this differ from mine.
What I find most unfortunate for adventists is when they find themselves having to reject science and evidence and defend impossible positions like YEC. It indicates a deep commitment to ignorance, and I do not see how that can be good for anyone.
Here we go again . . . . #1–we all have the same evidence with which to work. Those with a prior commitment to evolution interpret it according to their world view. Those who believe the Bible simply interpret the evidence through a different set of lenses. Who is correct? I'll stick with the Bible because it has never failed; while scientific theories often have a habit of coming and going.
#2–YEC do not reject science. I'm using it right now. But we see a vast difference between practical, observational science and the speculative science involved with the origin and age of the earth.
But to accuse YEC of being "out of sync" with the evidence or of being "committed to ignorance" is rediculous. It's akin to a YEC labeling you a moraly bankrupt atheist, which I would not do because I know that not everyone who has bought into evolution and all its trappings, is an atheist, nor do they lack morals. In fact I believe only a minority could be described that way.
Jean this is where I get very confused with your responses and those of other YEC. You seem to flip-flop between 2 contradictory responses:
1. Science is not rejected by accepted because science proves YEC. This is the position you are using just now.
2. Science can't be trusted and must be rejected. That is the position you were using against me when we were discussing how science was 'a lesser light' and 'handmaiden of theology'. If you recall, I rebutted you by pointed out you used 'science' everytime there is a Digging Up the Past seminar, or a CHIP health seminar, or a Revelation Seminar.
Which is it – science we should accept or reject?
Joe, I hear what you are saying and that appears to be a 100% goal, where Christians would be willing at accept the factual truth of evolution. However, the SDA Church appears to be at or near 0%, where Adventists have to accept the factual truth that evolution is false. Wouldn't be good if the SDA Church could even get to a 50% position, that it admits there 'evidence is unknown', and that in the absence of any 'factual truth', it is open to exploring the issue?
I believe these discussions with AT bloggers, regarding evolution and creation and God's role in the process of creation, are somewhat vital, primarily because at least in the days when I attended Adventist high schools and universities, it was viewed as "something we don't do in Adventist schools; we all know that the study of evolution is something from which good Adventists are by and large to be protected here in Adventist education."
We were assigned no outside reading on these questions, evolutionists never came to lecture and dialogue with us, and as a result we graduated without the ability to speak with any degree of depth about these matters. Though I am a journalist and know "only enough to be dangerous" on these issues, I CAN tell you that today (in contradistinction to days of yore) I am able to hold a bit of my own on this question with graduate students from the University of Oregon, etc., in philosophy and other ethical discussions, because I am able to fathom what they are trying to say, and I can offer respectful rejoinders that actually ADVANCE conversion on the question of the existence of God and his role in life, rather than end those conversations "cold."
I think often of the story of the politician-and-prophet Daniel in the Bible, who held fast on the question of diet, but made no such request to abstain from the king's educational system. He dove in and excelled in the Babylonian university of the times, emerging apparently even more solid in his convictions than when he went in. It is by no means counterintuitive to study and understand the material that non-Christians wrestle with as they try to establish a moral compass in their lives and dovetail this with a concept of origins. Another topic that would be fascinating to discuss in the AT blogosphere is the rather pervasive concept, today, that we as human beings actually possess no free will, in the end, and that we pretty much do what we are programmed to do, while thinking we are actually making profound choices about our lives and beliefs. A good philosophical blog with and by a Christian-Adventist philosopher would be very helpful to those of us who find that the Sabbath school quarterly, for example, falls a bit short in helping us "keep up" with current thought on these matters. If we are ignorant of the current thinking, by and large our opinions on faith and Christianity will be held in some contempt by those whose primary intellectual orientation is built around this frame of reference. The discussions here at AT have been most helpful (I think) and I plan to continue reading them, though sometimes the rancorous nature of some of the writers must be skipped over, a little prayer said, as we extract the serious content from the smoke and mirrors. (Saying this, I mean no disrespect to those who believe that in "holding fast"—and somewhat acrimoniously—for the truth as they perceive truth they are doing God's will in sharing here. I will read their material, but will give higher diligence to deeper philosophical and scientific points of view. I hope this is seen as fair and Christian.)
I'm not sure when you attended SDA schools, but I graduated from an Adventist college 40 years ago. I was a biology major, and we did discuss evolution as it related to the Christian understanding of creation. Two of our textbooks were Fossils, Flood, and Fire, and Creation, Accident or Design. We did not graduate in a state of ignorance regarding evolutionary theory. Since then more material had become available, and the bankruptcy of the evolutionary theory has become more obvious–except to those who have an prior commitment to that religion.
When I see phrases like "the Christian understanding of creation," I get a little suspicious. WHICH understanding is that? There is not just ONE "understanding" held by all who are Christians. I'm guessing that there are others here who graduated from essentially the same curriculum you describe who would disagree with you (and some who would agree). It seems we just don't know what we don't know.
Do I have to spell everything out? The traditional Christian understanding of creation; before it was corrupted by "higher" criticism and evolution.
Tradition is what the church should stand on: It was believed then, and should be now.
Your know very well that that is not what I meant.
The mind plays tricks on itself: cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias, motivated reasoning. Human beings are not, at our cores, rational creatures. We're tribal and emotional, and fiercely defend our deeply held beliefs; we look for evidence and arguments that confirm what we already think, while ignoring or rejecting that which does not. It takes enormous effort–and self-awareness–to view the world without narrow blinders. "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle," George Orwell once said.
So let's not be too hard on the people who are so certain of their beliefs. Instead, let's ask ourselves: What's in front of my own nose that I am refusing to see? What delusions am I protecting, and at what cost?
And we can't understand what we refuse to consider.
Hear, hear.
Elaine, was that a confession 🙂
G.O.K.
I am glad to see that there are some who were raised as adventists who are open to consideration of continually emerging scientific evidence. It is a little sad and scary that the indoctrination of others is so complete that they are not even able to consider the possibility that not everything is as they were taught.
Kevin said: Does science say a resurrection is impossible, or simply that there is no scientific evidence that it has happened? They are two different things.
EXACTLY KEVIN, exactly right! I think this point is getting lost. I think people are trying to suggest that science doesn't believe in the possibility of a resurrection; therefore, science can't be trusted on the age of the earth. No one is saying that at all.
Science is totally blank on the issue of the resurrection – it can't tell us anything. This is totally different from the age of the earth, which science can tell us about. Science isn't about what IS only what can be observed.
A better argument for YEC to make (and sometimes they do make it) is to accept that science (being human observation) shows the earth as over billions of years old, but to say that as a matter of fact, it IS only 6,000 years old. For example, if any of us used science (i.e. observed) Adam at 1 day old, how old would we say he was? Wouldn't we all say that Adam was say 20 years old, not 1 day old?
OEC can't really dispute this argument scientifically. Rather they attack this theologically, saying we shouldn't believe in such as a 'trickster God' you would make the world only 6,000 years ago but make it look as if it were billions of years old. But at least we could have a theological discussion then, not some sort of bogus scientific one.
I was away for the weekend But wow
Stephen I least expected you to employ misrepresentation and straw man. You know that I said I am not anti science I said it had its place and its sphere. So Science also does not say evolution is impossible but that there is no scientific evidence for a resssurection! wow talk about semantics! science also does not say vampires are impossible it simply offers no scientific evidence for their existence. I don,t see you with a cross or wooden stake or garlic! the same could be said about ghosts, monsters etc! Science does not say its impossible but that there is no scientific evidence for their existence. you are entangling yourself in a web that is proving to be quite difficult to get out of.
I still maintain that if you are a theistic evolutionist you cannot logically and consistently believe in the ressurection. you need to take your premises to their logical conclusions. A belief in christ with a darwinian mindset is misguided at best. You may not agree with me but at least I am logical within my belief system! I notice you are still deflecting my questions
Tapiwa, now you are relying on science to prove things! I believe in the resurrection because it says so in the Bible, because science can't tell me about it. I believe in gravity because science can tell me about it, because the Bible is silent about it.
Where the Bible tells me something – I believe it. Where science tells me something – I believe it. Where the Bible is ambiguous about something, and science can clarify it, I allow science to be the 'lesser light' in helping interpret the Bible. We Adventists do this all the time when we use archaeology and history to justify our interpretation of biblical prophey, or biological sciences for our views on alcohol, tabacco, drugs, meat and rest.
If either the Bible or science said vampires existed I would believe it – but they both don't. The Bible says angels exist, and science is silent, but I do believe in angels.
Where the Bible and science contradict, I take the Bible because science must be the 'lesser light' as the 'handmaiden of theology'. But one must be very careful in assuming that the Bible and science are contradicting, when in reality it is only our interpretation of the Bible and science that contradict.
I am not sure if we actually understand what each of us is saying.
P.S. I am not actually an OEC or an YEC – I am an agnostic on the age of the earth.
I'm confused, Stephen. You say that when the Bible say something that you believe it. But the Bible isn't ambiguous about a 6-day creation. Why do you prefer science over the Bible in this instance? It certainly doesn't clarify the issue, but makes it more confusing.
No the Bible isn't ambiguous over a 6-day creation; it is ambiguous over what a 'day' is, and whether it means 24 hrs or a much longer period. I don't prefer science over the Bible. I use science where the Bible is ambiguous. We Adventists do the same when we say that the legs of iron are the Roman Empire, or the litte horn is the Papacy. You certainly don't just read the Bible alone to arrive at those conclusions.
You know, if you guys just change "science" to the more verbose "observable reality," I think you might realize how totally ridiculous your comments sound (e.g. "I allow observable reality to be the 'lesser light' in helping to interpret the Bible" — give me a break).
Secondly, that we've not observed any evidence to support a given notion does not mean that "science is silent" on that topic. Take magical dragons whose firebreathing heats the Earth's core, for example. Despite not ever having observed the Earth's core directly, we have a huge body of geological information along with information on the composition and formation of stellar bodies that allow us to make some highly educated guesses about the core. In this way, science is not "silent" — if asked whether there were magical firebreathing dragons at the center of the Earth, you can shrug and say "gosh, I just don't know," but your not knowing would be self-imposed ignorance, not the result of some paucity of knowledge. Likewise, I could shrug and say, "gosh, I just don't know" with respect to magical resurrections and magical creatures from beyond the stars (angels), but I'd have to ignore the fact that in all our searching, in everything we've observed, we've not only seen zero evidence of either, but the picture being painted by our huge and ever-increasing body of knowledge is one in which magical resurrections and magical spirit-creatures make increasingly little sense.
Where the Bible and science contradict, I take the Bible because science must be the 'lesser light' as the 'handmaiden of theology'. But one must be very careful in assuming that the Bible and science are contradicting, when in reality it is only our interpretation of the Bible and science that contradict.
With this bastardization of reason and logic, I could found a religion based exclusively on The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
…actually, that doesn't sound like an altogether terrible idea, now that it crosses my mind. 🙂
Tim and Jean answer this for me.
Do you believe: the legs of iron and clay are the Roman Empire; the feet of clay and iron are Europe; the little horn is the Papacy; the bitter book that tastes like honey but is bitter in the stomach is the Great Disappointment; or the Lamb-like power is the US?
Show me how you come to these conclusions just from reading the Bible, without using the 'observable reality' of history, archaeology and any other 'science'?
No, I don't believe those things, although I recall explicitly being taught those things in my Bible classes at Sacramento Adventist Academy. They make for a convenient melding of historical events with Biblical "prophecy" and nothing more. I'm certain that given an afternoon to concoct something of my own, I could come up with an equally palatable succession of historical events.
But… uh, I'm not sure how any of that has anything to do with what we've been talking about in this sub-thread.
We seem to be having a three-way conversation. Tim, if you don't believe those things, then I agree at least your position is clear. I take it you also don't believe in Angels either, given science can neither prove nor disprove their existence with science? I take it you probably also question belief in God, given science can neither prove nor disprove His/Its existence.
But for an Adventist who does claim to believe that the Roman Empire is the legs of iron or the Papacy is the litte horn, don't you think it contradictory to say that science has no place in helping to interpret the Bible – because even conservative Adventists use science all the time for that very purpose?
I take it you also don't believe in Angels either, given science can neither prove nor disprove their existence with science? I take it you probably also question belief in God, given science can neither prove nor disprove His/Its existence.
You didn't get the point I made just a couple comments earlier — that, or you just didn't read it for whatever reason (and it's looking more and more like you don't even bother to read my replies — it's becoming systematic, which is a little concerning.) When you say "science can neither prove nor disprove [the existence of angels]," that is incorrect. That is wrong. That is a false statement. Science is merely the systematic observation and measurement of the world around us. As such, it is perfectly plausible, perfectly possible that we might demonstrate some evidence of angels, or spirit creatures or magical beings or however you want to classify them. Not only have we observed no such evidence, but as I said before, the picture we're building of the universe through our observations and measurements is leaving less and less room for magical angels all the time — there's just no evidence of such a thing outside the words of the Bible, one of hundreds of "holy scriptures" in the world.
So no, my disbelief is not due to science being "unable" to address the existence of angels. My disbelief stems from the fact that we've observed precisely ZERO evidence of angels, and until some evidence turns up, that will continue to be the case. Where I come from, blind faith is not a virtue.
What can science tell us about resurrection? We know that people can appear to be dead–the usual signs of life being absent–and that they sometimes can be revived, and even occasionally spontaneously revive. Some would say, well then, the person was not really dead. A scientist might ask, then what does "really dead" mean? What are the measurable characteristics that differentiate those who can be revived and those who can't? That becomes an empirical question that can be addressed scientifically. Or, one can just put the whole thing into an inexplicable "spiritual" realm. Is there any evidence of any sort of the resurrection of anyone who cannot be revived? What is the nature and quality of that evidence?
But, what in the world would this issue have to do with evidence of the age of the earth? Or the evidence from paleobiology? Where is the connection?
In past ages, many might have been declared when there were no medical evidences required to determine death as there are today.
One non-disputable way: autopsy 😉
Seriously, there were "reports" of resurrections before and during the time of Christ so it was not a unique event (meaning never having occurred). But none of the Gospels record an individual having seen him emerge from the tomb. All the earliest accounts were from those who saw an empty tomb, the stone rolled away, a figure appearing before them that was unrecognized at first. This is evidence?
People during those times believed in supernatural events; they did not ask for evidence. Today, we have learned much more about death and the human body's ability to withstand much. But there is no evidence of a human having been dead as long as it was reported that Jesus was in the tomb: 24-30 hours (not three days, but Friday night, Saturday and early Sunday morning) and being restored to his former body. But Jesus was not in his former body. He may have been in the condition that humans may be in heaven (we don't know what that is), but with the ability to appear and disappear; walk through doors, and not recognized by those who had been with him for three years raises questions of whether it was a physical body as before or a spirit.
Didn't the earliest version of the Gospel (I believe it was Mark?) have no resurrection story in it at all? Happy to be corrected, and not saying I don't believe in the resurrection.
Mark is very interesting. It was indeed without a resurrection account. But, I am reluctant to assume 'absence of evidence means evidence of absence'. It is strange that it was left out if it were known, but it is also very difficult to explain Christianity if it did not start with a belief in the resurrection of Jesus.
Yes indeed. The resurrection seems to be the foundation of Christianity otherwise the founders were collectively mad. Morever, I guess for the early church there wasn't the foreseen need to create a new set of sacred scriptures, because of course they all thought Jesus was going to return in their own lifetimes.
It was belief in the resurrection that was one of the reasons for Christianity; Pentecost being the first. (Both of these major events occurred on the first day of the week, mostly uncelebrated by Adventists.)
The Resurrection was not an original belief until Paul, who was not one of the disciples and never knew Jesus personally, began preaching it. They never even imagined trying to "prove" it occurred, but it was based on faith and became part of the Christian religion.
But why shouldn't it? After all, Christianity is not built on scientific evidence for its doctrines (can anyone literally explain the Trinity?) but the addition of beliefs which became doctrines incremenally. Compare the essentials for Christianity as outlined by Paul, and those Adventists have adopted today to realize that adding doctrines is truly a growth industry.
"The Resurrection was not an original belief"
What? Peter preached it at Pentecost, and before the Sanhedrin. Where do you get this stuff? Read your Bible, not the unenlightened mumbo jumbo spewed forth by skeptical "theologians."
The "resurrection" which is the hope of a return to life for all those that have died and are "saved" is just another uncorroborated story. Why should we not be skeptical? What is this Polyannish literal acceptance of culturally based stories? What is interesting about Kevins remark above is that since Mark is without a resurrection account he is "reluctant" to assume that the absence of evidence does not rule out the event. Many religions base their faith on non-corroborated events they call miraculous. Christianity is no different.
What is an unbeliever doing debating this issue here? It is your privilege to discount the Biblical narrative, but you won't get far with those for whom "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
I suppose Jean is correct: faith is evidence of things not seen. Like indoctrination.
The author of Acts, written ca. 90-100 A.D., reported Peter's speech, but Peter never witnessed the resurrection. Like the other disciples, he only heard about it.
Sadly, were it not for the "miracles" recounted in the Bible, there might be fewer Christians as miracles and supernatural events have always attracted those who want to believe.
For those Christians who are convinced of these supernatural events recorded in the Bible, would you believe a story of a resurrection if reported from the Middle East today? Would you need any additional evidence other than the report of someone having known of a man who died and was resurrected in some distant village? If someone is certain that this occurred at least once, 2,000 years ago, even the Bible said other such miracles would happen, so do you entertain the possibility that such a story today could be true?
"For those Christians who are convinced of these supernatural events recorded in the Bible, would you believe a story of a resurrection if reported from the Middle East today?"
Why not? We have such a story from the Middle east, and it occured less than 100 years ago. Read the story of Diamondola. But you probably won't believe it, since no scientists were on hand to verify it.
I don't want to speak for Elaine, but I imagine that if she doesn't believe that the Diamondola story is evidence of supernatural power, it won't be expressly due to "no scientists [being] on hand to verify it." Rather, as would be the case with any questioning, reasonable mind, the problem is the following:
Many billions of people have died and remained dead despite the prayers of their loved ones throughout human history. Yet here we have one uncorroborated story about person magically springing back to life and conclude not that it's more likely that the witnesses were mistaken or that her apparent ressurection could be explained by natural albeit rare and/or unusual conditions, but that it must be evidence of magical power of an invisible being who lives beyond the stars but sees all.
A mind with a healthy dose of skepticism would question their account in light of those billions of people who haven't been magically raised. An indoctrinated, compromised mind would reach out and cling to any evidence it can find to support its indoctrination no matter how tenuous the evidence and how absurd the conclusion reached.
If you read the exact same story, but instead of "supernatural resuscitation" she was brought back by a tall, thin green man with large black eyes who descended from the sky in a flying saucer, you'd totally dismiss it. You literally wouldn't even entertain the possibility that the story is true — it'd be crazy, right? Yet you see, quote, "no reason to suspect that it was fabricated" as written because it supports your preexisting belief in a God. Little green men wouldn't work. Yet in both versions of the story, the evidence is precisely the same.
I'm not convinced that you would believe it even if it happened before your very eyes. The fact that 99.9999999% of the population has not been raised from the dead does not prove that no one ever has been. There were witnesses at the raising of Diamondola, but I'm sure they all just made it up so they could get a book published.
The fact that 99.9999999% of the population has not been raised from the dead does not prove that no one ever has been.
No, it sure doesn't, but it does mean that supernatural resurrection is an extraordinary claim that should require extraordinary evidence. If I told you that I could bend spoons with my mind, the fact that 99.9999999% of the population can't do this doesn't prove that I can't, but it should prompt you to seek more evidence than my say-so before you buy into my claim. Or would you just take it on faith?
There were witnesses at the raising of Diamondola, but I'm sure they all just made it up so they could get a book published.
Oh yeah, of course not — making up a story to get a book published is much less believable than magical resurrection. I mean, who does that sort of thing?
I love how you just stop replying whenever I make a point, and then just bring up the exact same thing elsewhere. None of this makes any difference to you at all, does it? Since the Diamondola story can't be explicitly disproven, you'll damn well keep believing it forever, won't you?
What would be the point? You don't seem to believe anything that you can't see for yourself.
Can you prove that George Washington crossed the Delaware? How do we know it was really Alexander the Great who conquered the Medes and Persians. All we have is ancient documents written by biased observers. The CBS News team wasn't on hand to document it.. How can we believe anything that we don't see with our own eyes? By your standards virtually nothing in the past can be corroborated.
Is there an irony in the Evolution-Creation debate?
The account in Gen 1-2a is likely to have been written last, as a Priestly source, in the time of the exile in Babylon. It post-dates the Jawist account in Gen 2 by some three hundred years.
Gen 1 is distinctively anti-Darwinian, as is the Israelite-cult in general, which the Priestly source largely addresses. The creation accounts of the Ancient Near East were very Darwinian, where the god Maluk created the world through a Darwinian struggle in the Epic of Enuma Elish; whereas, the creation account in Gen 1 shows a God totally in control of the situation. Even the notion of clean animals corresponds to domestic animals, which is the notion of nature as tamed by mankind; whereas, unclean wild animals live in the dangerous world of the wild.
The Jewish mindset was very fearful of the wilderness, beyond the pale of human settlement in Canaan. You see this in the command in Gen 1 for mankind to rule and subdue the natural world – where domestication of animals is part of that process. You even see it extending into the story of Jesus’ temptation, which happened in the wilderness, and where at the successful completion of the tests by Satan, Jesus lives with the wild animals, which become tame in His presence.
The Priests in exile created this account largely because their own world was so chaotic and uncertain after the destruction of Jerusalem. They created an anti-Darwinian creation account, and emphasised things such as clean and unclean animals, precisely because they knew the world was a Darwinian struggle.
So the question is – did the authors of Gen 1-2a do too good a job?
And the focus of this comment is on the question of why Gen 1 is so anti-Darwinian, not on arguments about the source and composition of the Torah. If you believe in creation YEC, then this would explain it. But if you believe in evolution OEC, then why do you think the Gen 1 account, and the Jewish cult in particular, is so anti-evolution in tone.
Compare Gen 1 to say Enuma Elish, which is a very Darwinian account of the ancient Babylonian myth, where the god Marduk creates mankind and the world in a Darwinian struggle against the Mother-goddess (Titan, dragon, sea monster) Timiat? If evolution is true, why don't we have something like the Enuma Elish as our creation story – it would fit better! Why do we seem to have the very opposite in Gen – something extremely anti-Darwinian.
What would happen if "Darwin" and "Darwinian" was not almost a staple of creation/evolution discussions?
To mention "Darwin" in a sentence of biblical creation is sloppy thinking and writing. Darwin refers to the man who initiated a world-wide revolution in the mid-19th century of the former understanding of how animals developed and changed over time. What does Darwin have to do with either the Bible creation story or Enuma Elish? Both are myths originating with their respective cultures.
I agree that the day-by-day account in the Priestly version is in complete harmony with the strict order and regiment that the priests ruled over the people: everything had to be in perfect order; all the rituals were most important to be followed exactly, and specifics and their explanation gave them extraordinary privilege to rule over the people who must obey their directives.
That the Biblical creation story is polemic against the superstitions of ancient culture regarding origins is well proved. I find it very interesting that the Biblical story does introduce a sequence of creation, very much in line with the fossil record that we have discovered. This being from the creation of our solar system to the appearance of pangena and photosynthic life, then the clearing of the atmosphere that the Sun and Moon become actually visible. Then on to the Cambrian Explosion on day 5 and insects and then creatures on land and mankind. Very interesting that the story progresses in this way.
Does your bible say the atmosphere was cleared so that the sun and moon became visible? If not, where does that story originate?
The progression from light in general or unspecified
on day one, is specified as ‘great luminaries.
This was in sense a scientific description and
anti-mythical avoiding any use of the words, sun,moon or
stars because all names for these were names of
gods. Luminaries is a good translation of ma’or = ‘place of light.’
The verb ‘made’ is in a perfect past tense like form,
and would refer back to the first day by saying, “had made”
two great lights. Verse 16. Verse 14 can be translated
‘let there be’ or ‘appear’ two great lights in the’ expanse of skies.’
Besides the above, the explanation for their appearance
is marking times, also in the sense of regulation
many creatures bio-clocks. This implying they
became visible for those purposes.
I'm sorry, maybe I'm totally misreading your last two posts here, but.. in what way does this address Joe's question? I don't want to step on his toes here, but just in case you accidentally misread it the first time, I'll paste it here again below:
Joe Erwin asked: Does your bible say the atmosphere was cleared so that the sun and moon became visible? If not, where does that story originate?
I am sorry I should have kept it simple: Yes!
I am sorry I should have kept it simple: Yes!
Where does it say that?
Sorry, Darrel, but you seem to be profoundly confused.
The story in Gen. 2 throws such theories to the wind. Man was God's first creative act followed by plants. There is no mention of lights or luminaries. Yet they are evident in the sky.
Arguing over specifics of a myth is like arguing where Pandora was when she opened the jar; or how long it took Adam to name all the animals. This is a very typical myth of which there are numerous ones. The difference is that the Hebrew myth is considered true and all the others are false.
The story in Gen. 2 throws such theories to the wind. Man was God's first creative act followed by plants. There is no mention of lights or luminaries. Yet they are evident in the sky.
Arguing over specifics of a myth is like arguing where Pandora was when she opened the jar; or how long it took Adam to name all the animals. This is a very typical myth of which there are numerous ones. The difference is that the Hebrew myth is considered true and all the others are false.
You must have a different version of the Bible than I do. Was it published by the "Skeptics Society?" Is this an Adventist forum or isn't it? Why are so many blatant attacks on Scripture and SDA beliefs allowed to pass unchallenged by the guardians of this site? Sometimes this seems more like a venue for those who with to attack, belittle, or undermine the truths of Scripture, rather than seeking"always to build the Kingdom of God and to feature the best elements of Adventist Christianity."
You may regarad the Bible as myth. But most Adventists believe it to be truth or they wouldn't be church members. The evidences for the divine origin of Scripture have been well articulated by numerous apologists. Other "scriptures" fall flat when held up to the light.
I usually am the first to accuse Elaine of trolling (that is saying something irrelevant to the purpose of a website, which on an SDA website would assume an acceptance of belief in God, Jesus and the Bible), but I don't think she is trolling in what she says.
The Bible is a tapestry. There is clear evidence that the Torah/Pentateuch was not all written by one single author, Moses, for the reason reason that it describes his death (and he hardly wrote his own death did he?) I won't bother going into all the other details.
The Torah is arguably like the Gospels – different authors, inspired at different times, giving different perspectives. Elaine's point is, and she can correct me herself, is that there are arguably 2 creation accounts in Gen – chapters 1 (ending verse 2) and chapter 2. In fact, as Elaine and I have both discussed, there are at least five other creation accounts in the OT, including Pslams, Proverbs, Job and Ecclesiastes.
The point is – why do we only focus on Gen 1 and not on the other 5 creation accounts? How do we deal with apparent contradictions between these various creation accounts? As Elaine noted, the orders of creation in Gen 1 and Gen 2 seem to be different? It is a similar question as to how to deal with contradictions of facts between the Gospels?
No one (or at least me) are doubting the divine origin of scripture. But that doesn't necessarily mean everything in scripture is literally true. Adventists know this whenever a Sunday-keeping Christian points to Jesus' story about Lazerus in hell, and we say – hang on, you can't literally read that story as true, it is just a metaphor or a parable.
I believe that Gen 1 and 2 relate to each other
the way Judges 4 and 5 – Exodus 14 and 15 do.
In each couplet one chapter describes a historical
event and the other (the second) is a song or
poem about the theological meaning of the event.
Judges 4 is a sober recounting of what happened
in the battle, but when we read Judges 5, Deborah’s
Song about the battle is poetic and metaphorical.
I believe Gen 1 and 2 follow this Biblical pattern. We
are confused because we don’t see the literary pattern
in the it is foreign to us.
My earlier point is simply that “let the great lights appear in the sky”
indicates that from day one on, they themselves
were not visible-as on a cloudy day. That they
appeared indicates the atmospher clearing.
I'm sorry, I guess I'm just not getting it. I just re-read Genesis chapters 1 and 2, and I'm not seeing anything that suggests any sort of atmospheric clearing. Can you point me to the specific verse or verses that you're interpreting this way? Thanks!
Sorry!
There is some good discussion here I think on alternative meanings of Gen 1-2. I am not sure which is the most convincing, but glad it has gone beyond the literal 6×24 hr versus the metaphor view. There is a whole host of different theories, including: age-epoch; metaphorical; day-fiat; cosmic temple; day-organisational etc. Again, it would be great if we had a Church where these different theories could be discussed in a spirit of openess.
If someone said:
"I believe there is only one God and that God made everything and is responsible for it. I do not know when or how it happened. I believe that humans became estranged from God and needed to be reconciled with God. I believe that the message of Jesus was a message of reconciliation. I believe that message was that God loves us more than anything and wants us to live healthy and productive lives, free from guilt and shame. And I believe that, most of all, God wants us to respect ourselves and others, and treat each other decently–that is, treat others as we wish to be treated."
Well, that would be just fine. I just don't see that from many SDAs. It seems like there are just way too many added details that people want to argue about, and all that arguing, it seems to me, gets in the way of the basic foundations of faith.
28 Fundamentals and counting. I think we could do with about 7 as 'core' beliefs – the rest being so much discussion about how many angels sit on the head of a pin. Interesting – sure – what not essential. I actually think the RC did it historically quite well with their various orders, which was a way of maintaining a degree of unity but also allow for quite a large amount of diversity.
It is recognised – by the few who have studied in the area – that a church like ours, or any ideologically based group that isn't strictly hierarchical, needs to allow 'independent ministries' for those who want greater commitment to a section of the ideology. Whether that is monastic orders, Campus Crusade, etc doesn't matter. What is required is an outlet for passion and enthusiasm that allows the individual or small group to do what they believe needs to be done – even if it involves an implicit or explicit critique of the larger organisation – while allowing the organisation to take a larger view.
So, would the following be enough?
Belief in God.
Belief that God made everything.
Belief that humans became estranged from God.
Belief that Jesus proclaimed a message of reconciliation.
Acceptance that God loves humans unconditionally.
Commitment to treat others as we wish to be treated.
What else is necessary?
Even briefer:
Love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself. All the rest is commentary on that.
True, but realistically you are hardly going to have a Christian denomination with just that. You may think that sad, but that is the truth.
Why would not Christianity be enough? Why is denominational fragmentation essential? Somehow, denominations just seem to fit more with "tribal" human nature than with the message of Jesus….
Joe your bare bones beliefs are a very good foundation. But bones need fleshing out and there are at least 28 or more ways for a good practical and satisfying religion to soften the bare bones, and make them mobile. My Adventist faith adds at least the following to your list. Our God is not only the creator but also the sustainer of life. Humans are not only animals but exceptional animals, with expectations on them unique and specific . Such as worship and morality. Time is created and regulated into cycles like years and months from his created time keepers and the week with it's Sabbath as an arbitrary mark of authority. Perhaps most important is the teaching that the creator cares for his creation from sparrows to Eve, but also values freedom. So this care is delegated to bloggers like you and me in communities like Adventism.
I would think out of the 28 current FBs, the SDA Church could seriously cut it back to say 7:
1. Primacy of the Bible.
2. Trinity.
3. Salvation by Faith through Grace.
4. Adult Baptism by Immersion.
5. Perpetuity of the Decalogue (including Sabbath)
6. Conditional Immortality (including State of the Dead and Annihilationism)
7. Visible, Imminent, Physical Second Advent of Jesus Christ.
I have no problem with Joe’s list at all but realistically the SDA Church does need to have some ‘distinctives’ from other denominations, and it is unrealistic to expect anything less. I think the above 7 would encapsulate the core beliefs which almost all Seventh-day Adventists agree on. Contrary to what many may say, I don't actually think YEC vs OEC is a 'core' fundamental belief.
My main concern is that with 28 FBs and counting, will we get to such a stage that we are so prescriptive it really becomes all a little ridiculous. I think we are already there or close to be there, with a large % of the Adventist population who doesn't really believe in all 28 FBs.
I have mentioned before, I recently heard ex-GC Pres Jan Paulsen talk about the FBs, where someone mentioned that a new convert gives an oath that they accept all of them. He made the astonishing statement that not all the FBs are ‘fundamental’ and a new convert didn’t really need to know all 28 – just the ‘main ones’! My natural question then was – which FBs are the ‘fundamental main ones’?
I like what seems to be inclusion of an animal welfare and wildlife conservation component to fundamental beliefs. That fits more closely with my ethical system that most of the items on my list. But I also like the brevity of Elaine's statement, which seems to be profoundly scriptural.
It is only humans that are never content with simple statements but consistently want to modify, make additions or deletions, and add long explanatory statements hoping to make things more clear, but only put limitations on them. Sometimes, a simple statement is the best:
"Thou shalt not murder."
The Golden Rule.
Allow each individual to extract or apply the simple so that it will make meaning for him. Any additions prevent using our own reasoning abilities but
limit them. Even a child can understand simple instructions, but when given all the theories and possibilities behind "No, you can't touch," or "Please close the door, weakens the statement. Parent either know this, or soon learn: do not discuss why an order is given to a small child–he will always win.
"Sometimes, a simple statement is the best:"
Yes, sometimes a simple statement is the best: " . . . in six days the Lord made heaven, and earth . . . ."
Finally we agree on something.
Why should I believe in a six-day creation and not the story in the second chapter where there is no mention of days? Are they not both from the same Bible? Why can you choose the one story and other cannot choose the second story?
Genesis 1 and 2 are not in contradiction to each other. One provides different details, that's all. But the skeptic will always find a problem where one doesn't exist.
Jean, perhaps you should explain to Elaine how the order of creation in Gen 1 compared with Gen 2 contradict? Adam last act of creation in Gen 1; last act of creation in Gen 2.
While you are at it, can you also please explain:
I am happy to be corrected on any of these problems. As I have said before, I am still an agnostic on the age of the earth. However, these are problems in the biblical text itself, which call into question the YEC view, let alone having to look at the scientific evidence. Do you have rational explanations for these questions, or do you just 'believe in the boosom' as Mormons teach for belief in the book of Mormon?
Yes, yes. These are the Biblical reasons that those of us Adventists who wish to take the Bible seriously instead of superficially, have been forced to expand our understanding of the creation story that was written for us, but not to us. We have learned as Jesus taught to understand creation "Beginning with Moses" but not "Ending with Moses.". It is so helpful to understand that Genesis is the introduction to the doctrine of creation, but by no means a restriction or totality of that doctrine. Genesis is very true, but Genesis is very incomplete. It takes a thick textbook to explain one little detail such as "how does blood make a clot when a vessel is injured?". So Genesis tells me the truth, "Life is in the blood.". But how the hemoglobin molecule is intelligently designed to tightly hold oxygen at one time and then how it generously and freely gives it up to the other body cells when needed takes a very long biochemistry lecture. Adventists need to permit Genesis to tell the truth not restrict the truth.
Stephen, I am beginning to understand this is a cultural thing to a large extent, with Australian Adventism being either somewhat or significantly different than African American Adventism; but are you sure you’re an agnostic on the Genesis six days creation narrative?
Your litany of questions has been addressed in this forum and many other places (including the EGW estate/writings); yet they persist.
I may not be personally motivated or qualified to address them once again; but my observation is that you are, perhaps subconsciously, looking for reasons to doubt what you read in Scripture for cultural reasons.
I am not a psychologist and could be very wrong, but it is curious.
As for your distilled seven Fundamental Beliefs, would Number 5 include a literal reading and understanding of the entire Ten Commandments?
You undoubtedly see where I am going.
Stephen, you do seem quite fascinated with psychological profile J. I am not really sure if I do see where you are going.
What I am looking for, is a little less dogmatism to an important issue. What I want, is for people to explore this issue from all angles, including the WHAT IF scenario.
As to looking for a basis to doubt what I read in scripture, I think you mean ‘a basis for what Seventh-day Adventists are taught about what we read in scripture’. There is a nuanced but important difference between what scripture says and what we think scripture says. We all bring our own biases to the table.
I guess I do what to believe that Gen 1 and 2 means ‘day’ to mean 24 hours, because that would make life much easier. However, I am increasingly sceptical about that, both as a question of science (namely that 99% of scientist believe in evolution), and as question of biblical interpretation (given the problems I outlined above). That said, I am not willing to say that I totally embrace evolution either, because I am mindful that science can be proven wrong (e.g. Y2K).
On that basis, I say I am an agnostic on the issue, although I do lean towards accepting evolution. As a ‘psychological assessment’, that is supposedly what ‘Ps’ do rather than ‘Js’ – they don’t jump to conclusions before they feel they have sufficient facts – to use the Meyrs-Brigg analysis.
Furthermore, I am not sure what you mean by FB#5 re the Holy Spirit? I would think that most theistic-evolutionary theologians would be happy with the statement in FB#5.
As to a literal reading of the Ten Commandments, I am not sure what you are getting at? They are literally true, but I believe they are only apodictic laws, not causatic laws.
Perhaps you are trying ask whether I read Ex 20:11 do I read literally the phrase ‘For in six says the Lord made the heavens and the earth…’ I do read this ‘literally’, but would challenge the notion that ‘literally’ necessarily means a day is 24 hours. There are biblical passages that indicate that a ‘God-day’ is not 24 hours. We humans work 6 ‘human days’ and rest 1 ‘human day’ a week in imitation of God’s 6 ‘God days’ of work and 1 ‘God day’ of rest.
As I have explained in quite detail previously, the first 4 commandments are really about imitating God. We are not allowed to build graven images of stone ourselves, because God made us as His images. I believe God has been resting in His Sabbath since He finished creation with creation of mankind, and continues to do rest, which is why in Gen 2:1a there is no evening and morning to the 7th day.
In my own mind, even if there was a ‘Christopher Columbus’ or ‘Magellan’ moment when it became all but impossible to deny the fact of evolution, I still am confident that all our FBs could pretty much survive. It certainly wouldn’t destroy the belief and practice of the Sabbath, as many on both ‘sides’ of this debate argue.
Finally, I note people try to say that the issues I raised in Gen 1 and 2 have been addressed in this forum and many other places. I would contend they haven’t really – some people have addressed some aspects around the edges. However, I can’t recall anyone who has actually addressed many or most of these issues in a concerted way. The GC’s GRI has articles that try to address these, but even they come up pretty short in my opinion.
P.S. I am also not sure how much you can attribute to African American culture vs Australian culture. To tell you the truth, I found myself much more at home with African American culture in the US compared with say Afro-Caribbean culture in the UK. I am not even sure if Australian culture is more similar to white American culture vs African American culture. Even if you look at the history of Australia during WW2, there were plenty of incidents where Australian troops bashed White American troops when they observed discrimination against African American troops. But white Australians definitely are no angels either, being quite racist against our own indigenous population.
Long but interesting…. Again, the Myer-Briggs instrument should not be over valued, but if it is to be used at all, it should be used in its complete form, not merely to contrast what one thinks the dichotomies mean (as opposed to how the scale measures them). I come out way at the other end of where I would expect to be on some of these.
I agree. There is a lot more subtlety to the theory and practice than is conveyed on the website. I view it as useful, just as 'ideal types' are useful in social science. But we should never confuse any 'type' or 'model' with the messiness of real people living real lives. And we should never reduce any human, or group of humans, to a simple description.
Having said that, the fact that the vast majority of SDAs do fit very well the description of one personality type can be useful knowledge if our intent is to understand rather than to stereotype or judge. Not that I am accusing Stephen (either of them) of such intention, but I have seen that happen.
Right, Kevin. Same with the measures of authoritarian personality.
Ok yes. I was only mentioning it because Stephen always seems to make these little psychological assessments on me. There does seem to be some suggestion, not just by Stephen, that if you try to say you haven't totally made your mind up on an issue, and are still open-minded to hear further arguments, that is somehow a defect or cop-out. I would just think that is smart.
Yep – the best place to get run over by traffic from both ways is in the middle of the road. And it is amazing how many from both sides will take careful aim to make sure they don't miss. On clear, central issues I am all for taking a strong stand, but for other issues where things are not so clear and the importance is debatable, why be railroaded into taking a position.
One of the worst effects of constant calls to choose either liberalism or fundamentalism in our church has been the erosion of belief in there being other options. We do not have to choose only between the two extremes. The centre has always been the strength of Adventism and we need not only members who refuse to move to the extremes, but more leaders who are willing to stand against both extremes.
How is the center identified? The status quo? Tradition?
"Tradition is the reason for doing something you can no longer think of as a reason for doing."
The centre is usually between the extremes, and it does tend to respect tradition without slavishly following it. There is a reason for most traditions – often good reasons – and it doesn't hurt to find out what they are before simply throwing out tradition.
Stephen,
It’s good, I suppose, that you seem to now be reluctantly admitting that you lean toward evolution or theistic evolution.
This is certainly seen as one side of the debate in ‘white’ Adventism and I know that you are most comfortable being in the open-minded middle of this.
I say ‘white’ Adventism because this is the cultural dimension to which I refer. On the issue between evolution and the Genesis narrative, there is no debate in ‘non-white’ Adventism (at least this is certainly the case for African American, Caribbean Adventism).
This may be the topic for another blog, but I would contend that the reason that whites have left the Adventist church is because many of you no longer believe the Genesis narrative as literal.
Now, I am aware that you believe that science and/or observable reality or whatever is a lesser light that sheds light on Biblical interpretation of the Genesis narrative. Therefore you have to come up with an explanation for the 6 evening and morning days described in the Genesis narrative.
The larger point however is that significant numbers of white Adventists no longer believe what the denomination officially teaches and believes; and you are now perhaps among them.
My observation, for what it’s worth, is that this is apparently a slippery slope.
There are also large numbers of younger members leaving the SDA churches in areas where whites are rare and believers in evolution even rarer. The issue of creation VS evolution may be one reason why some people leave, but lots of people find other reasons. Even if we get agreement on this issue, there are others where people of various colours do not agree with the church. Reading the Bible literally does not in any way guarantee agreement on what it means.
I think Kevin is right. There are many reasons. But, I don't agree with the slippery slope idea. It is nothing more than a way to blame those who leave and absolve the church of any culpability.
Let's consider the one issue you talked about, interpreting Genesis literally. I grew up as an a SDA and was exposed to flood theories to explain the apparent age of the earth. It was acceptable to try to find plausible explanations for the apparent contradiction between nature and scripture. Over the years those flood theories have not proven very stisfactory as new evidence for an OE has arisen. Even the churches creation think tank admits it can provide a cohesive theory for all the evidence.
Just maybe the problem is the church is not a place where you can adapt your beliefs to honest observations.
I think we are far to rigid in our definition of truth. There is truth about God, life, and this world that we believe that are spiritual revelations by God and there is nOempirical evidence to consider. God is a spirit and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit.
All of us are forced by our mental capacities to make some alignment between our spirital convictions and our observations of reality. Personally I am more concerned that my church experience provides the best insight into the spiritual realm and less concerned about its ability to explain the physical realm. Obviously, the two realms are not unrelated and there must be a unified explanation of both of this realms. But, we may not ( probably are not) capable of comprehending the whole of it.
It seems to me that holding rigidly to any view of our interpretations of the physical realities produce arrogance and intolerance. These are fruit considered evil in most people's spiritual convictions.
"This may be the topic for another blog, but I would contend that the reason that whites have left the Adventist church is because many of you no longer believe the Genesis narrative as literal."
I believe that is at least part of the reason, Brother Foster. It is not hard to reason from cause to effect. If Genesis doesn't mean what it says, then how can one be sure the rest of the Bible is to be taken seriously.
Another reason so many have left (in my opinion, at least) is the failure, on the part of my parent's generation (I was born in 1950) to clearly articulate the principles underlying many of our standards and doctrines. And so, little by little, compromises were made, and since few could defend many of our standards and doctrines, a significant number of people could find no rationale for remaining in a church which was considered to be a cult by so many other Christians.
Jean,
I was born in 1950 also. Your appraisal resonates with my experience. In my opinion there are some additional complexities. I think the issues go further back than our parents. Adventism has never grown to maturity needed for the articulation of the principles. Early on our origins we have been more concerned by appearances that leaves the principles.
I attend the oldest Adventist church below the mason-Dixon line. Over 25 years ago we celebrated our 100th anniversary. One of the saints who has passed on prepared a historical sketch. As part of it he read the original covenant signed by the charter members. Most of it was was about the things they agreed not to do. A preoccupation with external appearances. The only thing that was doctrinal or theological was the Sabbath. The rest were standards even including the abstinence from wearing feathers.
It was taken for granted by the itinerant preachers who founded the church that those whO responded understood the fundamentals of Chritianity. They were wrong. Ellen White traveled to the church and spoke a few years after the founding of the church. Her journals confirm the visit as well as her stop at a nearby tourist attraction. As far as I know no one knows anything about the message she presented.other than there was standing room only.
We forget that the really Christ centered EGW writings came later in her life. And her change in focus was not well accepted.
Adventism was largely built on the attraction of people who were preoccupied with prophecy and external appearances and behavior. This opened the door for Biblical interpretations that are not ground in the true character of God. We have not had the courage to reconstruct our beliefs to align with the gospel. We are too proud to admit we our glorious past is not so glorious.
Our parents could not articulate the principles because that has never been the basis for those Adventists who insist on preserving Adventism as it was in the 19th century. We were founded in legalism common in that era. That perspective was reinforced by the early writings of EGW and the behavioral distinctions that have been the identity Adventist's first generation of its adherents.
Iknow quite well the history of my church. It is only in recent years that there has been a chance that those who join will be truly nurtured in the gospel truth and even now it still a challenge.
Adventism developed in rural America and things have changed greatly. But, I believe that we are clinging to legacy that embraced from the very beginning a problem with articulating the principles for or standards and doctrines. I believe this is in part more than an articulation problem. In some cases we are out of sync with God' principles.
Sorry for some weird typos and missing words. Using my iPad. Hope it is not too confusing.
Agree with much that is said; however, I have also seen pendulum to the other direction. Recently our pastors ran a prophecy seminar. The senior elders who are the powers of our Church didn't protest too loudly, but you could see that they were a little uncomfortable by it. No doubt when they grew up it was all shoved down their throats.
However, when I reflect on my own generation (I was born in 1979), I would say the vast majority have a pretty superficial understanding of our doctrines. And I am talking about young Advenists who attend every week, and have done so for their entire lives. I think that is also kind of sad as well.
So I think both Rudy and Jean are right – in their own ways.
Undoubtedly there are numerous reasons that people leave any church; and this church particularly. I did not mean to suggest that there is only one reason why white people leave Adventism; sorry for the miscommunication.
The behavioral emphasis as relates to law definitely has contributed to many people leaving. The misapplication of doctrine and the confusing of doctrine and traditions are historic problems. The FACT that Jesus came to save THE WORLD—including us—is under emphasized.
This said, the disbelief of the Genesis narrative as a literally true explanation of earth origins, and God’s role in them, is a lynch pin in my view.
The reason this is so is because, for me at least, the logical progression would be that if God did not do what the Bible claims that He Himself claims to have done (“For in six days…”), then the Sabbath is bogus.
If God did not do what the Bible claims that He claims that He did, then what else does the Bible claim that is not to be believed?
If the Bible’s claims are not to be believed, then the Bible’s central figure, Jesus Christ, is not to be believed. Of course, He said that if you don’t believe in Him you are condemned. When one cannot believe Him, while not believing Him is condemnatory, what’s the use?
You see it all logically, easily unravels.
I do agree Stephen with much of your thrust that cultures are different, and sub-cultures within the SDA Church are different. In all honesty though, I don't think evolution-creation is the main reason young white people leave the Church – at least in my country. The evolution debate might only contribute insofar as when young people go to university, and they are given all the facts about evolution, are convinced of it, and then told by SDA publications that they cannot be Adventists and believe in evolution, that contributes to a feeling that the Church doesn't want them. That is why I find statements by people such as Clifford Goldstein grossly irresponsible.
But to be honest, the people leaving the Church who fit into that category would probably be the small %, the educated types including those who frequent this site. Most young people do not leave the SDA Church for any great doctrinal reason, but simply because they have a bad experience, don't have many Christian friends (because their parents take them to a doctrinal 'pure' Church that has no young people), get involved a non-Christian lifestyle with their non-Christian friends, or simply drift away.
Perhaps to reflect some things Rudy said, many young people superficially know our beliefs, but don't really know Jesus and have never had a real conversion experience. To reflect some things Jean said, many young people know what Adventists don't do, but they don't really know the proper Bible basis behind it anymore, and are fast becoming biblically illiterate.
If you want to know the real secret of keeping young people in the Church, especially young men – make sure they get a good SDA Christian girlfriend! I have seen countless young men ‘off the rails’ come back to the fold and become pillars of the local Church under the influence of a good woman. I believe the scriptural guidance of ‘unequally’ yoked, and the example of Solomon, are worth 100 Revelation Studies of our doctrines.
No doubt Stephen, godly young women who happen to be SDA can potentially keep many young men in the SDA church. This is apparently a cross cultural reality.
But you may want to consider what the effects of the comparative cultural responses to SDA higher education have historically been. I don’t have any research, but plenty of observational experience on the African American Adventist responses to Seventh-day Adventist higher education.
You should also seriously consider that the progression that I have suggested would occur with me might just be that to which Goldstein has reference; and isn’t unreasonable. This slippery slope is slippery precisely because it is a reasonable and logical slide.
It’s true; the bottom line is that there is no substitute for a life changing, mind renewing (conversion) experience with Christ.
Dear Brother Stephen, how well I remember my friend James, with whom I was in army basic training, explaining to me why he wanted to make the extra effort to attend the black SDA church, rather than the main (white dominated) church. We had both joined the choir in the main church. James found the singing style very bland, along with pretty much everything else. He found the music and the preaching at the black church much more to his taste. But also, he found the main church less welcoming and friendly than the black church, and he specifically identified the young women in the main church as being cold towards him by contrast with those in the black church. I imagine the cultural divide might have eased somewhat across the years among adventists, although not nearly to the extent elsewhere in America, and even in the more general society in America racial stereotyping and profiling and bias are still profoundly evident. Brother Stephen, I'm wondering what your impression is of African American Adventist responses to Seventh-day Adventist higher education, perhaps by comparison with responses to higher education more generally.
What I have observed, Joe, relative to African American Adventist response to Adventist higher education (as opposed to higher education) in general, is that my contemporaries and those senior are most often bolstered or reinforced in their Adventism by college education.
Now, by and large, most of those with whom I am familiar have attended Oakwood, Washington Adventist University (formerly Columbia Union College) and the now defunct Atlantic Union College. What I have observed is that many of those who graduate from Adventist colleges are so socially connected with Adventists that they have no social need to leave the church. Then it is my observation that by the time they graduate from college they have questioned, tested, and come to an intellectual acceptance, accommodation, or abandonment of the various traditions taught as doctrines. Thirdly I have observed that by the time they have matriculated through Adventist college, they have heard enough powerfully persuasive cases made for the Jesus of the Bible that they are not likely going anywhere.
The latter truly cannot really be overemphasized.
Brother, frankly, if you had heard the same sermons and experienced the same music that I have (and continue to hear and experience), you might well see things rather differently than you now appear to. Personally my faith and response have been in proportion to what I have heard. (Romans 10:17, “So then faith cometh by…)
As compared to responses to higher education generally, I can offer this as opinion. In the U.S. when a black person attends and completes college, it is huge. Those who do often (initially) experience similar standards of living as their white contemporaries. The God Factor, for lack of better term, may not be taken as much for granted as in other cultural communities.
Stephen,
I am sad to see join ranks with Cliff.
I don't buy the Genesis slippery slope notion for one minute. I have had conversations with lots of the disillusioned Adventist youth and they are not wrestling with evolution or creation. They do often wrestle with the absent God problem and a lot of other much less academic/theological issues.
You see Adventism works fairly well for people who have a need to declare they have arrived at the unvarnished truth and are going to park there and have their picnic. The problem is this mindset is very compatible with legalistic religion and legalistic religion is dead. So, many of our young people find it natural to struggle with the absent God problem because the religion that represents God to them is often dead or appears dead.
I expect there is a difference in African American experience regarding this. I have no research and only limited observation, but I don't believe that African American churches seem so dead, nor does zeal for Adventist doctrine seem to be so closely correlated with legalism as it is in White American Adventist congregations. I don't pretend to know all the reasons that might be true, but I believe it is.
I really wish you would get off the notion that what people believe about Genesis is the big slippery slope. I think I have often made a good case that Adventism has clung to some to some ideas and attitudes that are a much bigger problem. As long as people like Cliff (and now you are allying yourself with him) continue their arrogant rant, young people will leave not because they disagree with him on Genesis, but because if the church condones such ugly spirited arrogance then they will reject that is representative of a God and religion they want to be connected to.
Here is what saddest about Adventist youth that leave the church. Because they have at sometime believed they were connected to the "true" church they are more likely to be done with religion and God. When the "true" church has little or no grace it will no longer be viewed by youth in the seeking stage as an option.
Is there a specific quote of Goldstein that you can cite that is of particular concern to you in this regard?
I am an admirer of Goldstein and agree with him most of the time.
What did I say about the logical progression that would occur to me (if I did not believe the Genesis narrative) that is so problematic from your perspective? Is something perhaps illogical, irrational or farfetched? How does the reality that this is how I would process certain specific information affect young (or old) Adventists who leave?
Stephen,
You have been in this forum long enough to have read Cliff's interactions with people who don't ascribe to his literal Genesis view. If I have to point out specific statements for you to recognize and arrogant rant, I don't think it is worth the trouble.
Surely you know how passionately Cliff feels about HIS interpretation and how he leaves no room in Adventism for anyone who has a different interpretation.
I feel strongly about it because I would much prefer to be able to say only a literal interpreation of the Genesis creation record is plausible so I'll go with what I have faith is inspired rather than the conclusions of the scientific community. However, I simply do not believe that if you are honest you can exclude the possiblity that the proper reading is not literal. As others have said I am forced into an agnostic position regarding which of these is true.
What's more as I have spent many years trying to come to a practical and honest interpreation of scripture I am more and more convinced that God deliberately does not provide the evidence for certainity on many issues. He is not primarily interested in our intellectual agreement, but with our faith response and how we integrate other people and their differences and flaws into our journey through life.
None of us has the capacity to fully understand and arrive at perfect truth. So, he uses thoses circumstances to distinguish not our scriptural knowlege, but our character.
I have no idea what the "logical progession" is you are referring to. Also, you are up to your old tricks. I made a series of points. You don't really seem to be responding to any of them (I understand if you don't have time to respond to them all). You always seem to focus more defending yourself than your arguments.
One last comment. Unfortunately it is a bit harsh. You may admire Cliff, but I struggle to have my name associated with a denomination whose leadership doesn't recognize and discourage his arrogant babble. He is overly certain of himself, condescending, and intolerant of those who have a difference of opinion. Wow, you admire that.
Sorry Rudy,
I have never seen or read a posting on this site by Goldstein in all the time that I have been aware of this site’s existence.
If he is perhaps using a pseudonym with which I should somehow be familiar, please let me know what it is.
I must say that the implication that one cannot honestly believe that we “can exclude the possibility that the proper reading is not literal” is rather personally insulting. (But that has seldom stopped you previously.)
If you are at all interested in the comments I made to Stephen Ferguson which delineated what would be my personal progression, and which preceded your criticism of me, it can be found further up this on this thread; starting with “Undoubtedly…”
(Perhaps you should have read what I said in its context before criticizing me.)
I’m sorry you feel so strongly about Goldstein that it brings out such emotion.
It’s good to ask someone, and let them inform you, of what it is about another that they admire; instead of you telling them what that is (yourself). Why put words in other peoples’ mouths?
Stephen,
My most recent post was written with some irritation with what you wrote in your previous post. This irritation is the result of what seems to be your refusal to focus on the substance of a post and truly respond to that. Unfortunately, our dialog just seems to deteroriate. If somehow that is my fault I apologize, but I am not sure I know a way to challenge your ideas without the convesation degrading into personal reactions.
If you would point out something that Goldstein has said that is of particular irritation to you, I would appreciate it.
Forgive this observation but it seems that when we disagree with each other, it bothers you more than it really should.
I know that you do not think that I address points that are raised; but we don’t really agree about that, so there’s another point of potential bother. We can disagree and be cordial, and that’s as much my responsibility as yours.
Again, please try to read my post regarding my thought progression if I did not believe the Genesis narrative to be literally true; and tell me what about it is far afield or perhaps illogical—and how it might affect young (or old) people who may leave the church.
It relates to your not buying the slippery slope concept that this progression describes.
Stephen,
i was not saying your believing Genesis creation account caused anyone to leave. I think the legalism and self righteousness are the biggest reason young people leave. I don't think it is a conscious decision about beliefs per se. They here lots of religious claims, but witness very little of the Christ inspired embrace of sinners.
The connection I see with the literal reading of Genesis is the intolerance of those who think it might be or is something other than literal. That bring me back to Cliff G. He has made it plain that those who do not interpret Gensis lterally are not welcome in the church. He has sometimes expressed that in a a very ugly way. I find his attitude self-righteouss, arrogant, and judgmental. It is those kind of attitudes especially in leaders and spokes people that cause young people to leave.
Well, like I said, if you or anyone else can furnish a quote of Goldstein to this effect, I’d appreciate it.
Experience has demonstrated that it’s certainly possible to lose something in translation, let’s say.
The other point of my thought progression—if I did not believe the Genesis narrative to be literally true—insofar as Goldstein is concerned, is that I believe that such progression, or something quite similar, may be to what Goldstein made reference.
If so, if it is not an unreasonable progression, if it is indeed logical, then what exactly would be the problem? If you say that his attitude has been arrogant and self-righteous that’s another problem. But he would have had to have said and written quite a bit for one to come to that conclusion, right? So give me a something he said.
Cliff's remarks are found in his regular essays in the official SDA publication: The Review. As it is the official news magazine to members worldwide, his influence extends far and he has made such remarks that if an Adventist doesn't believe in a 6,000-year creation story, there should be no reason to stay in the church. Rather an open-ended invitation in "my way or the highway" as though he were the official doctrinal spokesperson for the world church. I don't know what his position with the denomination is, but he has been a regular contributor to the Review for a number of years, and as a secular Jewish convert to Adventism, he has gotten exceptional accolades for his intelligence and promotion of SDA doctrine.
Well, since Goldstein is a regular contributor to the Review, and since he has written a few books, and since he has a television program on The Hope Channel, and has apparently contributed to this site at one time, surely someone can provide a statement (quotation) that exemplifies an arrogant, or self righteous, or intolerant attitude.
Again, the logical progression that would occur to me if I did not believe the Genesis narrative to be literally true is what I would think to be similar to something Goldstein may have referenced.
"the real secret of keeping young people in the Church, especially young men – make sure they get a good SDA Christian girlfriend!
Many good men who only have one fault: not SDA members, are rejected by Christian women. Yet, there are many who have become SDAs through their loving wives! Rejecting a wonderful and potential mate for one reason only: church membership, has not proved to be more divorce insurance than other marriages. Membership means little as one can be loving and kind as a member; but also judgmental and critical which is difficult to live with.
"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers . . . ." II Cor. 6:14.
When Paul wrote this there were only Christians and Jews in that part of the world. An unbeliever meant anyone who was not Christian. There were no Adventists so to interpret that as meaning Adventism is only eisegesis.
Your logic regarding God's claims about His creation, is unimpeachable, Brother Foster. It's sad that so many professed Adventists are unable to see it.
Jean, I believe you believe that.
But I don't believe all who believe in God or even God the Creator believe that.
Stephen Ferguson,
In light of some of your comments higher up and your wish to be open minded and understand things I will post a link below.
I know most will not appreciate it. It is a longer video which gives an excellent overview of where some of the religious debate is between atheism and a "new" form of spirituality. I suspect the Jewish speakers present may well reflect the shape that faith will take into the next generations. It is going to be a world very challenging to traditional Adventism.
For those opposed to hearing things "outside" their safe zone. This is still a must watch imho
Link:http://www.jewishtvnetwork.com/?bcpid=533363107&bctid=802338105001
Thanks Chris – I do always appreciate your links and do think it is good to be challenged.
Kevin,
Re the "center". Have a look at the link I posted above and after you have watched it let me know if your "center" has or may need to shift a bit. I'm not baiting you or trying to trap you – its just that center is so much a matter of perspective.
10 years ago I thought I was center. A year or two ago I was trying to find center between two sides/positions/extremes that were quite different and part of which I had hardly imagined existed.
Today I am still trying to understand where center might be! As you say center is a place where you are target for both or many sides.
As I see it: The center is a very "wide" place as one or another of the extremes at the ends of the continuum between sides move. They move when new information or data which was not previously taken into account are brought into awareness.
Rather than have a debate about where the 'center' is, I would rather just say that there are a range of issues I have done enough personal research and study that I now have strong views on that are unlikely to change – say support for WO. However, there are other issues that I feel I have not yet done enough research and study on, I am still open to hear arguments, and refuse to be pigeon-holed to one 'side' – such as evolution or the issue of homosexuality. For some of these undecided issues, all I have done is explore the WHAT IFs for both sides of the debate.
And I should just say I believe Kevin has effectively mentioned before, and I think it is a good point, that we need to be careful that there are usually two sides to any issue. It is very easy to hear some latest theory and be really convinced about it, and I have done this myself, without realising there is probably someone out there who has a counter argument to that new theory. The hard thing to do is to force yourself to try and find and then examine both sides of the argument before making your mind up. The Bereans vs the Thessalonicans provide a case study in point.
Stephen,
I'm not actually suggesting a debate as to where the center is:) I may have given the wrong meaning. Perhaps I am suggesting more the oposite, that it is in fact virtually impossible to define because it is so much measure from a personal perspective. So, rather than trying to define it, I am suggesting that we all should be open to the fluidity of what and how we view the center and extremes relative to that.
One small example: Evolution as a process (not atheism) is viewed by the conservatives as an extreme. As can be seen on the link I posted, there are some who see their faith through the lens of evolution while at the same time consider atheism to be the extreme, and evolution as a center!
Chris, yes I understand and largely agree.
My goals for today are: (1) to learn something new; and (2) to change my mind about something.
Joe, if only we all had that attitude.