Skip to content

74 Comments

  1. Leo Hamulczyk
    28 October 2015 @ 12:08 am

    Ervin – regarding Jonah, have a read of “The Authenticity of the Book of Jonah” by Bill Cooper. It’s less than $10 on Amazon Kindle. (And while you’re at it you can check out the author’s other books, starting with The Authenticity of the Book of Genesis.)

    • Edwin Schwisow
      28 October 2015 @ 7:49 am

      One of the “problems” intrinsic (in some minds) to permitting heterodox views on various biblical issues (the Nature of Christ being a dominant one; the nature of Creation another one hot on the burner) is that many of our dear members believe that “what” you believe (doctrinal content, and its theological underpinnings) is just as important (if not more so) than “Who” you believe in. As I was growing up in the Church, listening to sermons in small churches here in the Northwest, it was very clear that the “truth” would set us free, and the truth as defined by the preachers was usually the doctrinal truth, not necessarily the Truth encapsulated in the life, death, and return of Jesus Christ. I was for a number of years convinced that I should not even consider joining our church through baptism, unless and until I absolutely concurred with a literal interpretation of the biblical story of creation. I was able to work through these problems, but it was not that easy for a 17-year-old brought up on very stringent preaching regarding the absolute nature of truth.

      There is also a sense that if we allow heterodox views on various doctrines, we will never be able to be “unified” into a perfect whole, in preparation for the appearing of our Lord. In the historic Adventist communion a great deal of latitude of belief existed among the pioneers, and it’s instructive that Ellen White was quite condemning of those who fretted over technicalities….

      • Donovan
        30 October 2015 @ 10:17 am

        The Devil lied when he said you shall know good and evil. (Know is covenant word in the bible) Truth can never unit/marry with error. We cannot be teaching two differnt things about creation. God created in Six literal days and sanctified the litteral Sabbath as a reminder of creation and of his character.
        I remember feeling blessed and previliged to observe the Sabbath when I saw evolution theory becoming more popular in the world. The Sabbath testifies of the truth of the creation account. And God Said…. and it was so… the evening and the morning was the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th day and God saw all that he had made and behold it was very God, on the 7th day God Blessed and Sanctified the 7th day. This is a fundamental bibilical position.

        Scientists who teaches evolution theory as the model explanation for the genisis of life on the planet earth is misinformed. Creation VS Evolution. Be not deceived. The bible does not mix them.

        For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast. Psalm 33:9

        • Serge Agafonoff
          01 November 2015 @ 1:59 am

          Donovan, “The devil lied when he said you shall know good and evil.”

          Scripture tells things rather differently, believe it or not.

          Gen 2:16 ¶ And Jehovah God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
          17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

          Well, they ate of the tree, but did not die, in the day they ate of it.

          Gen 3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, Of the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat:
          3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
          4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
          5 for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil.

          Now the serpent said, ‘ye shall be as Gods, knowing good an evil.’

          Gen 3:22 ¶ And Jehovah God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil;

          So, Donovan, who told the truth?

          • Donovan
            01 November 2015 @ 1:49 pm

            Serge “who told the truth”? Excellent question.

            I believe taking the bible as a whole we can know who is telling the truth.
            Of the devil that old serpent, Jesus said “He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.John 8:44.

            The serpent (The Devil) is the most subtle of all creatures. He is a liar He obfuscate and seek to cloud and confuse truth with lies.

            How I read the verse from the devil that said you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil, He is suggesting that you can be righteous and unrighteous / wicked at the same time. Be both good and evil in motive, Serve both good and evil, marry both good and evil, What was lacking in enlightening humanity experience was to know both good and evil and that is what God is like according to the devil, in essence God is both good and evil.

            But we know that he that loveth not knoweth not God for God is Love. Also Does a spring pour out sweet and bitter water from the same opening? Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh (good and evil).

            Jehovah God said behold the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil. Gen3:22. The experience of humanity changed once they distrust God to include Fear, Hurt, Pain, Sorrow, Sadness and suffering these negative experience is to know as…

      • E Ekimi
        31 October 2015 @ 12:30 pm

        Early Writings, Chapter 12 –False Shepherds p124-125: DO NOT go and listen to error –false teachings: “I was shown the necessity of those who believe that we are having the last message of mercy, being separate from those who are daily imbibing new errors. I saw that neither young nor old should attend their meetings; for it is wrong to thus encourage them while they teach error that is a deadly poison to the soul and teach for doctrines the commandments of men. The influence of such gatherings is not good. If God has delivered us from such darkness and error, we should stand fast in the liberty wherewith He has set us free and rejoice in the truth. God is displeased with us when we go to listen to error, without being obliged to go; for unless He sends us to those meetings where error is forced home to the people by the power of the will, He will not keep us. The angels cease their watchful care over us, and we are left to the buffetings of the enemy, to be darkened and weakened by him and the power of his evil angels; and the light around us becomes contaminated with the darkness. (125) I saw that we have no time to throw away in listening to fables. Our minds should not be thus diverted, but should be occupied with the present truth, and seeking wisdom that we may obtain a more thorough knowledge of our position, that with meekness we may be able to give a reason of our hope from the Scriptures.

      • e ekimi
        31 October 2015 @ 12:35 pm

        Early Writings, Chapter 12 –False Shepherds p124-125: DO NOT go and listen to error: “I was shown the necessity of those who believe that we are having the last message of mercy, being separate from those who are daily imbibing new errors. I saw that neither young nor old should attend their meetings; for it is wrong to thus encourage them while they teach error that is a deadly poison to the soul and teach for doctrines the commandments of men. The influence of such gatherings is not good. If God has delivered us from such darkness and error, we should stand fast in the liberty wherewith He has set us free and rejoice in the truth. God is displeased with us when we go to listen to error, without being obliged to go; for unless He sends us to those meetings where error is forced home to the people by the power of the will, He will not keep us. The angels cease their watchful care over us, and we are left to the buffetings of the enemy, to be darkened and weakened by him and the power of his evil angels; and the light around us becomes contaminated with the darkness. (125) I saw that we have no time to throw away in listening to fables. Our minds should not be thus diverted, but should be occupied with the present truth, and seeking wisdom that we may obtain a more thorough knowledge of our position, that with meekness we may be able to give a reason of our hope from the Scriptures.

  2. Justin
    28 October 2015 @ 4:47 am

    Wow Erwin, things really didn’t go well for you at the GC did they? Is there any part of the 28 fundamental beliefs that you actually believe to be true?

    • Jack Hoehn
      28 October 2015 @ 7:09 am

      This kind of snarky comment attacking the messenger instead of the message is throwing dust into our eyes, instead of looking for a creation account that will fit both the theology of the Biblical Creator and the facts seen in this wonderful world. Dr. Taylor may be on the fringe of Adventism with some of his ideas, but being honest with the age of the earth and the mechanisms of creation is not a fringe topic, it is core.

      • Daniel
        28 October 2015 @ 2:07 pm

        There is a suggestion that some people have evolved from dinosaur eggs? Can anyone prove this wrong; because the “evidence”, which is “fact”, is an “honest” account derived from a “wonderful world”? It’s the “core” of many a belief system which “science” has proved indisputably, without anyone able to abrogate for “millions” of years.

        All people have opinions, but the best one is only as good as the corrupt mind producing the thoughts; which then spills out into the world for every soul to lap up and become corrupted thereby.

        • Ervin Taylor
          29 October 2015 @ 9:31 am

          Daniel–Does that include your corrupted thoughts? Or are you exempted from such thoughts?

          • Daniel
            29 October 2015 @ 1:01 pm

            Ervin,

            You used my name in the first person to address me! I take it back; you’re not as bad as I thought you were.

            Yes, it does include my corrupt thoughts. The issue is, what do we do with those corrupt thoughts? Keep them to ourselves and let Christ deal with them so that we are purified; or propagate them and let them spread like a flood against those who have actually “escaped the pollutions of the world”?

            By the way, I got some things wrong in my last statement: It wasn’t dinosaur eggs but vipers eggs: “Brood of vipers! Who has warned you to flee from the wrath to come?”

  3. neo
    28 October 2015 @ 8:47 am

    When the observant Darwin looked the differences in the beaks of the finches he made overestimated conclusions that are the basis of his theory. He was an absolute ignorant if regard modern genetics and even more ignorant about epigenetics. He will be extremely surprise that the adaptations of finches beaks are not because mutations but the result of epigenetic changes that are reversible.

  4. Ken
    29 October 2015 @ 12:48 pm

    If God wanted He could have created living conditions on earth in the split of a second. He decided to create it in six literal 24 hours days for some mystical reason. The author of the above article insinuates that God is not all-mighty. God could also, when He made the earth, intentionally leaving traces that 6,000 years afterwards would seemingly appear as though a macro-evolution has taken place to test us whether we will unconditionally believe His Word. Macro-evolution cannot be proven scientifically, and creation in six days cannot be proven scientifically. God is wise he tests the “clever” and He tests the ignorant. The Word of the Lord is the standard. You call me a fundamentalist but i cannot call you faithless. Where is the fairness? In the end what it boils down to is: Who will trust the Bible unconditionally? If we cannot have confidence in the opening chapters of the Bible how in the world can we trust that Jesus is the Creator of the universe and carried our sins up on the cross? Praise the Lord for the faithful stewards in the General Conference (which are derogatorily called fundamentalists in the above article). The Sabbath-Sunday issue will be the ultimate test, then God and the universe will know who truly trust Him–speculations, conjectures, modern philosophies and human wisdom will then have no value.

    • Daniel
      29 October 2015 @ 1:22 pm

      Ken,

      An excellent testimony. I totally agree with you.

      I’m not sure the “Sabbath-Sunday issue will be the ultimate test” though?

      “23 But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. 24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” John 4:23,24.

      “….Fear God and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgment has come; and worship Him who made heaven and earth, the sea and springs of water.” Rev.14:6, 7.

      Peace, my friend.

    • Martin Schrattenholzer
      29 October 2015 @ 4:31 pm

      I think Ken’s assertion that the author implies God is not all-mighty [sic] needs some evidence and explanation.

      Furthermore Ken himself questions God’s omniscience by portraying him as one who tests, as though God does not already know us.

      Why he considers “fundamentalist’ a derogatory term is a complete mystery.

      He may however call me “faithless” if that accurately describes his opinion of me. I don’t trust the Bible unconditionally or I might feel guilty about not throwing stones at some people I know. I also don’t actually know that Jesus is creator of the universe or that he carried our sins on the cross (hard to know what that might even mean). It is sufficient to believe that God loves us and that he expects us to extend that love (how ever we understand this) to those we come in contact with.

      • Daniel
        29 October 2015 @ 7:32 pm

        Martin,

        You wrote: “I think Ken’s assertion that the author implies God is not all-mighty [sic] needs some evidence and explanation.”

        If you take 6 days to make a table and I take one year, who is more skillful? So, who is limiting God’s power?

        No, I know God tempts no one, and He knows what is in every soul, but we are tested to prove our faith:

        “6 In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while, if need be, you have been grieved by various trials, 7 that the genuineness of your faith, being much more precious than gold that perishes, though it is tested by fire, may be found to praise, honor, and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ, 8 whom having not seen you love.” 1 Pet. 1:6, 7.

        So, who is doing the testing?

    • Serge Agafonoff
      29 October 2015 @ 6:37 pm

      Hard to know where to begin, Ken. I apologise for appearing rude or forthright,(Daniel has set the standard in his reply to Ervin) but only a literalist SDA could spout such nonsense. The true God is not the tempter to disbelief you make him out to be. Look up Omphalos theory and see what sensible people think of that proposition.

      BTW, Jesus did NOT create the universe. The Logos did. It was the Logos who became flesh and dwelt among us, as Jesus. There was no ‘Jesus’ until 4BC.

      Another book you and Daniel clearly have to read, but will almost certainly not, is David Tacey’s Beyond Literal Belief. Others have said the same things before, but Tacey’s excellent version is the latest.

      If you still think that Genesis is to be taken ‘literally,’ tell me this: How is it there were three ‘days’ before there was a sun which is the divine-ordained definer of ‘days?’ How is there was ‘Light’ three days before there was any Light? Your literalist approach is doomed by the illogic inherent in the very story you demand be taken literally. Your appeal to Omphalos theory is the risible icing on that vacuous cake.

      One last question. Where did the literal firmament go?

      • Daniel
        29 October 2015 @ 6:57 pm

        Serge,

        I won’t use my “standard” of reply with you as I do with Ervin, unless you wish to match his method of replying to those who he dislikes.

        You wrote: “How is it there were three ‘days’ before there was a sun which is the divine-ordained definer of ‘days?’ How is there was ‘Light’ three days before there was any Light?”

        So, what’s the answer?

        • Serge Agafonoff
          29 October 2015 @ 7:47 pm

          I had thought to expect better of you Daniel. I was a bit surprised. I’ve not noticed that Ervin is prone to liking or disliking. He seems to be able to stick to the content and not argue ad hominem.

          First Daniel, have you not noticed that Light was created on Day 1, but EVERYTHING in the universe which yields light was created on Day 4? No, most literalists don’t even seem to ‘see’ such obvious things.

          The answer to your question, ‘what is it?’ is this: IT, Gen 1, is poetry. Hebrew poetry. And it is written, spoken, in a far more sophisticated style than literalists of nineteenth century New England, and their children, seem able, or willing, to grasp. So who’s the clever boy then? Moses is, presuming He wrote Gen 1 but that is not the question here. Moses is just too clever for biblical literalists, it would appear. There is no reason on God’s earth to imagine that ancient Hebrews thought or spoke or wrote in the same kind of intellectual categories that C19 folks do, just as C19 thinking is itself a ling way from, and definitely less-informed and inferior to C21 ways of thinking. And don’t say, ah, that’s because we are more sinful now. Its just the way things are because that’s the way things are now, and that’s how it was then. But do not presume that the way you think about things today has to be the same way they thought aobut it millennia ago. Its nonsense to presume that.

          Here it

          • Serge Agafonoff
            29 October 2015 @ 7:59 pm

            Back to the poetry. Hebrew poetry is a symmetry of ideas, not rhyming of sounds. Read the psalms for the most obvious examples. You will find over and over again, similar ideas, different words, expressed in form and symmetry of a ‘poetic’ kind, but nothing like ‘our’ idea of poetry.

            Gen 1 is obvious when you see it. The things created on Day 1 ‘rhyme’ with the things of Day 4. Day 2 rhymes with 5, and Day 3 with 6. 7 is the grand finale/conclusion/summary.

            Now you can see why it IMPOSSIBLE to take Gen 1 literally. But more than that, why it is completely unnecessary to take it literally. You can but absorb the poetic meaning of something almost too grand for words. But then, that is why we need poetry, metaphor, all ‘figures of speech,’ isn’t it? Literality is simply not up to the task of saying what needs to be said. And only someone not up to the job of discerning such grandeur will try to take such poetry literally. Jesus speaks his deepest truths to us in parables. Gen 1 is a grand parable. Contemplate on this.

          • Daniel
            29 October 2015 @ 8:11 pm

            Serge,

            Firstly, you haven’t noticed Ervin’s dislikes towards others on this web site because it doesn’t involve you. And, no, he doesn’t stick to the content! If you see that, then I must be an absolute idiot!

            Now, to the Light. What shall I say, seeing I am so annoyed now, should I reply? Not so. But your theory of “poetics” is absolute nonsense.

            What “Light” did God bring into existence on the first day? His Light, my friend.

            Contemplate that!

          • Serge Agafonoff
            29 October 2015 @ 8:37 pm

            Describe God’s Light ‘literally’ please Daniel. In your answer please make reference to the the biblical teaching that ‘God is Light’ (1Jn 1.5) and ‘God is Eternal.’

          • Daniel
            29 October 2015 @ 8:54 pm

            Serge,

            “1 Therefore, since we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we do not lose heart. 2 But we have renounced the hidden things of shame, not walking in craftiness nor handling the word of God deceitfully, but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. 3 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.” 2 Cor. 4:1-4.

            The world does not see that Light. The world wants to see literally but it is not visible, and yet the Light is Real, as Real as God Himself.

            “5 For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your bondservants for Jesus’ sake. 6 For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” Verses 5, 6.

            Peace, my friend.

          • Serge Agafonoff
            29 October 2015 @ 10:24 pm

            Daniel, that effort does not get you even a basic pass. You are here confusing NT concepts of light, there is literal light, ie, ‘light to shine out of darkness,’ with metaphoric light, ie, ‘light of the gospel.’ And all the while you avoid describing the Light ‘which God made’ on Day 1, which you said was ‘His Light.’ No wonder you can’t see the poetic aspect of Gen 1. Remember, this problem arose when you commended Ken for stating his literalist views of Gen 1 and how you ‘totally agreed.’ Please distinguish at least between metaphoric and literal light. ALso state whether the light of Day is literal ‘white light’ or something else.

          • Serge Agafonoff
            29 October 2015 @ 10:25 pm

            Apologies, that should read, ‘whether the light of Day 1 is literal white light or something else.

          • Daniel
            29 October 2015 @ 11:16 pm

            Serge,

            Firstly, my commendations to Ken was solely in support of his testimony of God’s power and support in Biblical truth, regardless whether he was speaking literally or what you call metaphorically. As it has been noted previously, I do not regard the General Conference of any value and therefore did not bother mentioning my disproval to Ken. In regards to the Sabbath-Sunday issue I stated my opposition. As you can see, I was not in agreement with all of Ken’s statement; and if my wording “Totally agree with you” was inconsistent with the rest of my comment, then, yes, I am in error.

            However, the Genesis Creation account is both literal and [spiritual]. I will not go into the spiritual meaning again as it was covered in another article on this subject, which, might I add, is starting to sound like a broken record. But, some people have nothing better to do. I’m sure Ervin loves what he does.

            If you look at Genesis purely in a spiritual perspective, (metaphorically) then the subject of this article has set out to deceive all participants. The author of this article should have make it clear whether or not we are discussing the [literal] creation or aspects of spiritually.

            As to your last question “whether the light of Day 1 is literal white light or something else.”: once again, is your question directed in the “literal” sense or “spiritual”? If spiritual, then read 1 Tim.6:14-16. If literal, then, no contest—it wasn’t literal light.

          • EM
            30 October 2015 @ 5:54 pm

            Serge.
            You have brought out some interesting points against literalism. And it does seem rather impossible to make the prose of Genesis 1 fit in any way what we know about the universe. You have expressed it well. And to tie the value of Sabbath keeping to this is a mistake. God rested after His work–seven meaning complete; He was the creator of all. Jesus rested in the grave–His work completed for our salvation. He is our rest and our Sabbath. We celebrate it because of Him.
            Because of Christ I can’t accept an evolutionary theory of creation with violence and sin. This also does not fit.
            But it seems we try to fit our theology into an ancient and foreign worldview in creation on one hand; and into a contradictory “scientific” theology on another.

    • Clyde Bright
      30 October 2015 @ 9:23 pm

      Amen brother! Their position calls Jesus a liar.

  5. Yudelis
    29 October 2015 @ 1:59 pm

    I have a thought. It is not scientific, correct or Biblical.

    I am just wondering out loud:

    “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters”.

    Mr. Noel (I think?) explainded to me that usually the Bible first explains what happened, along with its outcome, and then it starts to narrate in the subsequent verses the details of how the events unfolded (I truly hope I did not misunderstand).

    Gen. 1 does not seem to be the exception to that rule.

    However:

    Am I the only one who notices a pause in between Gen. 1:1-3 and Gen 1:4-31?

    Could it be possible that the earth’s platform (the globe), along with everything that is contained in space, was created first? Could there have been a pause after the earth was created and before life itself was created?

    If that’s plausible, then I have grounds to believe that whatever happened between Gen 1:1-3 is most definitely much older than whatever transpired between Gen 1:4-31…

    If that is plausible, then it’d make perfect sense that the age of the earth keeps coming up as billions of years old, when dated. And this wouldn’t take away from a literal 24 hr – 6 day life creation period; both would actually harmonize beautifully!

    Also, I see no further references of water creation after Gen 1:4. Water existed indefinitely before marine life inhabited it…

    • Daniel
      29 October 2015 @ 2:26 pm

      Yudelis,

      I wrote the following, in another article, the way I understood the Genesis Creation account. I hope it’s not too difficult to follow:

      Water containing all matter was created first. (Gen. 1:1, 2; which is only a summary account). Dividing the waters from the waters was the forming of the heavens/space (Gen.1:6-8). The water with all the matter which was separated from the waters above the heavens/space is the portion which was used to form the earth (Gen.1:9, 10). It was that portion of water and matter which had no form as yet which is referred to as being “without form and void” (Planet earth, but not yet formed; Gen.1:2).

      How I perceive this is that all the water and matter/atoms, which were all within the volume of water, were created on the first day, (how great in extent this volume of water is, can only be described as awesome in our minds).

      The second day was when God divided the “waters from the waters” to make the expanse/heavens. The third day God worked on the waters which contained the matter/atoms within the center of the expanse/heavens and began to gather the “waters together and the dry land appeared”. This is a separation of the matter/atoms and the water. We now have the earth in its first baron state without vegetation, etc.

      If you look at it this way: a volume of water with an air bubble in the center (Heaven/expense); and within that center of air bubble another volume of water which became the earth.

      Makes sense?

      • Yudelis
        29 October 2015 @ 4:02 pm

        Thank you, Daniel, for showing me a different perspective.

        If I tell you that it makes sense, I would be lying to us both, but I do not reject you differentiation when it comes to the separation of the waters.

        My own idea is quite senseless, as I subscribe to all of Mr. Ken’s thoughts and commend him for pointing us to what’s really important: God’s power. Given His ability to turn water into aged, premium wine, instantaneously, I’ve no reason to doubt a literal 24 hour-6 day creation period.

        I am just curious when it comes to certain things, and have always wondered why all method for dating the earth always place its age as billions of years old. The idea of a much older globe puts my mind at ease, but I agree that this idea has major flaws.

        I will continue to study!

        • Daniel
          29 October 2015 @ 5:21 pm

          Yudelis,

          You wrote: “I am just curious when it comes to certain things, and have always wondered why all method for dating the earth always place its age as billions of years old.”

          You have partially answered your question: “why all method for dating the earth always place its age as billions of years old.?” The fact is, (I have questioned Ervin on this point once before and received no answer) that all methods of measurement must have a “calibration” point, that is, standard starting point. Take for instance weights; unless one has a set weight to measure other objects there can be no one weight alike. If the earth was to be measured by some other matter or substance whose age has been determined, then that would be the standard for all other matter/atoms. So, until Scientists can prove, without any doubt, that their measurements have a determined starting point, it’s all up in the air, as it is, because no one scientist seems to come up with one agreeable age for the earth. One says one million years, another says ten million years, and yet another will says—whatever. Plucking numbers from the sky. It just doesn’t work for me.

          “12 Who has measured the waters in the hollow of His hand, measured heaven with a span and calculated the dust of the earth in a measure? Weighed the mountains in scales and the hills in a balance?” Isa.40:12.

          We see that God Himself measured His Creation, to make sure everything worked perfectly.

  6. Ervin Taylor
    29 October 2015 @ 5:48 pm

    Why do all isotopic dating methods “always place it age as billions of years old.”? That’s because the earth is billions of years old. And they do not pluck “numbers from the sky.” If you are really interested in how the techniques work and what the precise numbers are, there are many references that you can read.

    • Daniel
      29 October 2015 @ 6:12 pm

      Ervin,

      Had a quick read of “Radiometric dating” on Wikipedia, (I’m sure you will find something wrong with that site), and with all the uncertainties stated I am still convinced it is plucking numbers from the sky.

      Consider this: “The basic equation of radiometric dating requires that neither the parent nuclide nor the daughter product can enter or leave the material after its formation. The possible confounding effects of contamination of parent and daughter isotopes have to be considered, as do the effects of any loss or gain of such isotopes since the sample was created. It is therefore essential to have as much information as possible about the material being dated and to check for possible signs of alteration.[7]”

      Won’t go into detail as to what else I found suspect, but all can read for themselves if they so desire.

      Link below.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

    • Yudelis
      29 October 2015 @ 6:19 pm

      Yes, Mr. Taylor, I understand your point. Speaking for myself, I’ve been pouring over a myriad of literature on the methods used for dating the earth, hence my questions.

      To fully accept such dating methods, however, is equal to disregarding a literal 6 day creation period, and I refuse to reject God’s Word on the matter. Call my belief what you may.

      I am one who believes that, when it comes to many things, the truth of the matter is not found in one “camp”/belief system, exclusively. The truth, more often than not, lies in the middle.

      I am confident that in the near future a brilliant, more modern mind will be able to take a fresh look at both Gen. 1 in its relation to the earth’s age, and I am confident this person will come up with an acceptable Venn Diagram that can encompass/merge literal creationism with the much older age of the earth.

      I have an incling that the globe/space is billions of years older than the life created in a literal 6 day period of time (in human time. For God may possibly be only decades old). I see no reason as to why both theories cannot harmoniously coexist w/o taking away from God’s Word.

      A lifetime of reading/studying awaits!

  7. earphil
    29 October 2015 @ 10:14 pm

    AS i study Genesis 1, i find, as it reads, substantial value of untold lapses of time. Supposedly there was a great expanse of water from which the whole Earth was formed. Water was separated from water, and the space between the waters was created. The light GOD called into being on the first day, was not the lights
    He created on day four, the sun and the moon, from which Earth time was determined, to separate the day from the night, from which seasons and days and years were to be the “mark” (the beginning of actual sun and moon days) of days and nights, Would think the first three days were undetermined Earth time.
    On day three God made the land appear, and set in motion agriculture of seeds, fruit trees, and vegetation. We know that trees take “seasons” of growth to mature, yet they were mature on day three. And day four was created to “mark” seasons and days and years, i believe day four was seasons, days, and years.
    Days five and six all living creatures were created, including mankind, fish, birds, leviathans, dinosaurs, Cro-Magnons, Neanderthals, modern man. Can’t conceive God wouldn’t have given this chore a much longer period to ensure its quality and endurance, as only the same time as he supposedly spent on the second day. And day seven had God resting, with no evening being mentioned, how long was the Seventh Day??

  8. Philip Law
    29 October 2015 @ 10:49 pm

    Long ages based on radioactive nuclear decay is of necessity a deduction based on accepted assumptions since repeating the process even once is out of the question. Fundamentally it is speculative science. Similar set of assumptions very likely lead to similar time span estimations. Consistency of those ‘independent’ estimations becomes faith building validation of those constructs. It is basically a faith based proposition.

    The question of how can there be nights and days before the sun and the moon were created is basically putting God within the confinement of His Creation. Before an architect puts his plan of a skyscraper into realization through building contractors he talks about the functions of basement and the floorings as if they were already there. In the space of the skyscraper those floors were already in existence or at least delineated as reality. As Creator, God created the framework of time as well as the contents within them. He also demonstrated He was entirely capable of creating within that established time frame by designating the time segment called the Sabbath.

    • Daniel
      01 November 2015 @ 11:29 am

      Philip,

      Very well put.

      I perceive you have an understanding of our Great Creator Who was/is the Master Builder?

      Peace.

  9. Roger Metzger
    30 October 2015 @ 4:45 pm

    I work form a premise I call the principle of prior reference. In my feeble attempt to understand Genesis, I derive my definitions, not from a dictionary but from the context. The context seems to indicate that the word, “God” (whether capitalized or not) means someone or something that is worshiped. It seems to me that only the first cause of all things deserves my worship so the question is this: Who or what is the first cause?

    Next question: Who or what appeared to Moses at a burning bush “on” a mountain in Arabia? My wife doesn’t like me to use the term, “extraterrestrial” in this context but I think extraterrestrial means not from this planet.

    Next question: Did the God of Moses intend to deceive Moses or/and the rest of us? If not, was he “big” enough (wise, powerful, etc.) to guide Moses in writing about events that occurred before Moses was born?

    Joseph Smith grew up when “scientists” worked from the premise that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. JS developed a philosophy accordingly. After I became quite well with one of the young LdS in Utah, I sometimes told him, “Dan, your god is too small.”

    I don’t presume to tell LdS or anyone else what the book of Genesis “means”. For me, the question is whether the God of Moses can be trusted. Evangelism isn’t about telling people how to understand the Bible. The goal is to encourage people to trust the Lord.

    • Serge Agafonoff
      30 October 2015 @ 7:37 pm

      And continuing your theme, Roger, we can be ever so grateful that Jesus introduced us to a God who is even bigger than the God of Moses. And more gracious, loving, kind and good. Non-violent in every way. Who is in fact, not extraterrestrial. But He is ‘above all, through all and in you all.’ Or as some mystics say, ‘closer than hands or feet, nearer to you than breathing.’

      • Daniel
        01 November 2015 @ 12:03 pm

        Serge,

        25 With the merciful You will show Yourself merciful;
        With a blameless man You will show Yourself blameless;
        26 With the pure You will show Yourself pure;
        And with the devious You will show Yourself shrewd.
        27 For You will save the humble people,
        But will bring down haughty looks. Ps.18:25-27.

        The god we encounter when straying from God’s path is not the one Who inspired the Holy Scriptures. The one you accuse of being another God, a “violent one”, as recorded in the OT, is the same One Who declared God is Spirit, in the NT; and is not “a God who is even bigger than the God of Moses” but is One and the same. God is Love; and He is the same yesterday, today and forever. He is the One Who Loved Adam and Eve in the Garden just as He Loves us today. But man chose to walk away from God’s guidance and Love; and what a journey it has been!

  10. Richard Helzerman
    30 October 2015 @ 8:17 pm

    The fact that the text of Genesis 1 is Hebrew poetry does not imply that it is false. The fact that the first four days cannot be literal 24 hour days is self evident since the Hebrew day is from sunset to sunset, and there was no sun to set until the fourth day. Only days five and six could be literal 24 hour days, but since the first four were not, we can safely assume that the others were not either.

    Once you understand that the days may be longer than 24 hours, there is no contradiction between the Bible story and the scientific story. The periods of light and darkness are consistent with modern cosmology. There was first a period of light when all the matter was one wave. As it travelled its frequency decreased and its wave length increased. There was another period of light when the frequency slowed to that of visible light. At this point the universe was composed of 1/3 hydrogen and 2/3 helium. The third period of light was when gravity pulled the atoms together forming the stars and planets. This was the fourth day of creation. There is nothing in the theory of evolution that requires animals to kill each other. It is simply the fittest living to reproduce. Those who object that God would not use death and killing to develop life misunderstand the process of survival of the fittest. It does not mean the fittest kill the less fit. The Bible itself says that a day with the LORD is as a thousand years. The creation days were God’s days and not man’s…

    • Clyde Bright
      30 October 2015 @ 9:20 pm

      Not only do you put forth Genesis is wrong regarding a literal creation week, but you declare Jesus lied about the Sabbath being the seventh day of the week based on creation.

      1 John 2:19 says they went out from us so it would be evident they were not of us.

      All you naysayers that reject the creation account as Jesus reported it to Moses are also rejecting Jesus. If the sabbath at creation was really a long expanse of time that he blessed, made holy, and rested on…….he would have cleared that up and never observed the sabbath as a 24 hour day…..as was his custom.

      Jesus was the light (light of the world). Before he created the Sun he came to this spot in space that was dark, and his presence made it light. We are told that after he returns the Sun will no longer give light to this world because Jesus will dwell here with us and be our light……..just as he was before this planet was created.

      Science has recently reported there is a lot of different kinds of water out in space, and that some of the water here on earth existed before this planet was created, is older than this planet. This is another example of science proving the creation story because it says God gathered the waters together! It doesn’t say God created the water when he came here, it says he gathered the waters together.
      If you would let the Spirit open your mind, rather then trying to use mans limited knowledge that comes from Satan you might get somewhere.

      • Serge Agafonoff
        31 October 2015 @ 4:56 am

        And rightly so, Clyde. We do not need to rely on Satan’s ‘science’ to know there is water out there. The Hindus and the Iroquois and Seneca Indians all told us long ago that there was water in space. This is where the turtles swim while holding up the earth. And thank you for explaining about the light. I didn’t realise that earth was in such a dark spot in the universe, but all around was light. Makes perfect sense.

        • Daniel
          01 November 2015 @ 11:20 am

          Serge,

          I didn’t expect that from you–destroying someone’s faith in God and the Scriptures?

          • Serge Agafonoff
            01 November 2015 @ 2:27 pm

            Well, Daniel, if you hadn’t separated my two replies to Clyde by your inaccurate retort, you would see that I am doing what needs to be done, ie, pointing out that what often passes for so-called faith in God and the scriptures is belief in fables. I’m sure Clyde is well able to think deeply about this and reach a more viable stance for his ‘faith.’ Besides that, if I can actually destroy anyone’s ‘faith’ in anything, it was never that strong. I simply do not have the abilities you endow me with.

      • Serge Agafonoff
        31 October 2015 @ 6:50 am

        The more serious question that Clyde has opened for us here is that of cosmology.
        Ervin has pointed out that: “The biblical worldview knows of no three-storied or triple-decked universe. That ancient Hebrews believed the heavens consisted of a solid vault resting on a flat earth is not found in Scripture and appears to have emerged for the first time in the early nineteenth century.” I’m sure that anyone familiar with the scholarly corpus of specialists in early Hebrew languages and literature will be surprised at such a strange statement.”

        If folks truly want to claim that Gen 1 is a literal description of how God made the universe, (not just this dark little corner or it), then it is absolutely incumbent on them to provide a believable conception of 1. ‘the waters above,’ 2. ‘the waters beneath,’ 3. ‘the firmament’ and likely other elements of the Gen 1 story which simply do not fit with the structure of the cosmos as we see it today. eg, ‘the waters above’ have to be something far more than a few molecules frozen on Mars.

        Acts 7:22 And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and in deeds.
        Methinks he used some of this wisdom in his description of the cosmos.

        • Daniel
          01 November 2015 @ 3:00 pm

          Serge,

          You wrote: ““If folks truly want to claim that Gen 1 is a literal description of how God made the universe, …it is absolutely incumbent on them to provide a believable conception of…”

          You challenge participants to present a detailed description of Genesis 1 creation account literally, when earlier you condemned the literalist view as nonsense. So what are you asking?

          After one spends time describing their understanding of the creation account, as recorded in Genesis 1, what then? Do you then present your version in defense of your understanding as opposed to all others?

          I would like to present my understanding of Genesis 1 but refrain from doing so, lest you regard it as “nonsense”.

          Question: How do you view Genesis 1, literally, or metaphorically? Whichever way you understand it, please explain before anyone else wastes their time answering your questions.

          • Serge Agafonoff
            01 November 2015 @ 4:16 pm

            Daniel, I’d have thought it was pretty obvious by now that I do not take Gen 1, or 2 for that matter, to be a literal account of how God literally made the physical universe. Gen 1 is a poem in praise of the Elohim (feminine, plural, btw) who did the making, but nothing there can be claimed in any way to marry with our modern view of the structure of matter or the cosmos.

            All I ask is that for those of you who do hold it to be a literal account of the act of creation, understandable from our modern ‘scientific’ perspective and cosmology, please make your case in a logical, rational way.

            I don’t mind if people tell my that my understanding of Gen 1,2 is nonsense. I’ll happily put my arguments, and I would also hope that in doing so, I might in fact learn from others’ points of view. But it has to make sense.

            For example, you said to Richard that you think gravity is magnetic force. Sorry. If you wish to use these modern terms, best you be reasonably accurate in what they actually mean. But above all, do not assume that the ancients, Moses if you must, understood both gravity and magnetic force in the way that you imagine he did. It is allowable that we can have no idea of his cosmology, ie, whether he envisaged a three tiered universe, or one being carried on the backs of an infinite stack of turtles. Or we can see that his cosmology was remarkably similar to that which we glean from the hieroglyphs. But he was definitely not ‘scientific’ as we now…

        • Daniel
          01 November 2015 @ 5:10 pm

          Serge,

          “For example, you said to Richard that you think gravity is magnetic force. Sorry. If you wish to use these modern terms, best you be reasonably accurate in what they actually mean.”

          Unless this opinion site is a scientific laboratory, and the Library of Sciences, then I’m not sure what you require people to write here?

          “Gravity” is not magnetic force, it is a nonsense theory. The word “gravity” implies that there is no connection to the magnetic forces within the universe. It sits out there on fin air and has absolutely no meaning to me.

        • Daniel
          01 November 2015 @ 5:47 pm

          Serge,

          You claim that Genesis 1 or 2 do not represent “a literal account of how God literally made the physical universe.” If I misread you, then please correct me. Are you implying that because God didn’t specify every single step of the creation process in Genesis 1, [although it is a summarized account] that it doesn’t represent a true account of the created cosmos as we now know it?

          I do intend to present a [small] description of how I understand and see Genesis 1 creation account, but need to clarify whether or not we are on the same page; if you know what I mean? Otherwise I’m wasting my time.

          • Serge Agafonoff
            01 November 2015 @ 6:04 pm

            Whatever floats your boat, Daniel. Don’t rely on my opinion as to whether you are wasting your time or not. I think all discussion of ‘origins’ be it Genesis, evolution, or turtle theory is a waste of time. ie, we cannot know any of it for a certainty, therefore our conjectures are merely that, conjectures. We have to start with the what and how of our present situation. Psychology is a better place to begin than cosmology, as fun as it is.

            Speaking of boats. ‘The waters above’ the firmament served a real purpose for the Egyptians who first imagined them. Those were the waters on which Horus navigated his boat as he took his daily cycle around the planet. This is an example of how impossible it now is to differentiate between old theories and new. But of course, if your insistence on literal creation over literal 24 hour earth rotation days is motivated by the need or desire to ‘prove’ the Sabbath, then at least have the integrity to say so. Careful examination of what one assumes to be basic/given ‘fact’ at the beginning of a discussion is helpful to all. I have said over and over that Gen 1,2 is not a literal account of ‘creation.’ It is poetic myth (and I hold a very high view of myth and its place in our psychology / spirituality) and we would gain a lot more value from seeing Genesis in those terms. Literalism = philosophical materialism, which is a spiritual dead end, a kind of idolatry, imho.

        • Daniel
          01 November 2015 @ 6:18 pm

          Serge,

          You wrote: “But of course, if your insistence on literal creation over literal 24 hour earth rotation days is motivated by the need or desire to ‘prove’ the Sabbath, then at least have the integrity to say so.”

          Interesting. If that was your perception of my motives, then what else would you like to clear up? No, the Sabbath had nothing to do with my desire to share how I understand that the God of the Holy Scriptures is the very God who created everything in existence; and that Genesis 1 does glorify Him. Forgive me if I gave you that impression. Or the impression I was trying to arrive at some personal message for you regarding the Sabbath.

          • Serge Agafonoff
            01 November 2015 @ 7:22 pm

            I only said ‘IF’ Daniel. I was also speaking generally, not specifically to you. There are many on this site who appear entirely motivated to maintain literality for Gen 1 precisely in order to keep ‘Sabbath’ intact conceptually. I think the author(s) of Gen very much had Sabbath in mind when they told the story as they did. But they did not suffer from the issues of literality which Gen 1 now presents to those who live in this modern age. It is now very much a case of, ‘you can’t have it both ways.’

        • Daniel
          01 November 2015 @ 7:56 pm

          Serge,

          Thanks for clearing that up.

          I’m just picking through your statement a bit at a time.

          You wrote: “I have said over and over that Gen 1, 2 is not a literal account of ‘creation.’ It is poetic myth (and I hold a very high view of myth and its place in our psychology / spirituality) and we would gain a lot more value from seeing Genesis in those terms. Literalism = philosophical materialism, which is a spiritual dead end, a kind of idolatry, imho.”

          Whether it is a “literal account of creation” or not, doesn’t detract from the opening words: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”.

          “Literalism”: Acknowledging that the God of the Holy Scriptures is the Creator of all things, is that “idolatry”?

          And yes, I agree with you in regards to “spirituality”, that “we would gain a lot more value from seeing Genesis in those terms.”

          Anyway, I’ll know not to get involved in Dr. Taylor’s “creationism” articles again; seeing it generates more confusion than good.

      • Richard Helzerman
        01 November 2015 @ 1:53 pm

        •Dear Clyde Bright,

        I deny your false accusation that I, “Put forth Genesis is wrong.”

        I was explaining how Genesis is right when it declares that there were three periods when the universe was dark and then filled with light. These periods occurred before the sun and moon were created on day four.

        I deny your false accusation that I, “Reject the creation account.”

        The creation account in Genesis is a true account.

        I do not agree with your interpretation of the days as being 24 hours long. The text does not say that they are literal days.

        I deny your false accusation that I am also, “Rejecting Jesus.” Jesus did not say that the days of creation were literal days.

        I deny your false accusation that I said, “The Sabbath at creation was really a long expanse of time.” I only said that the first three creation days could not be literal because there was no sun to set to mark their beginning nor ending.

        I deny your false accusation that Jesus, “Would have cleared that up.” There were many false things that people believed that he did not clear up, see Mark 7:8, For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups; and many other such like things ye do.

    • Daniel
      01 November 2015 @ 2:12 pm

      Richard,

      You wrote: “The third period of light was when gravity pulled the atoms together forming the stars and planets.”

      The way I understand the theory of gravity is this: Magnetic force.

      But getting back to the “how” of things coming together: Are you saying God didn’t bring all the atoms/matter together to form the planets, etc? If not, it would be one huge mass of chaos, would it not? Or for that matter, it would all still be floating around space.

      Also, don’t quite agree with your “days” theory. If the time, before the Sun and Moon were created, were not days, then what were they?

      • Richard Helzerman
        01 November 2015 @ 3:56 pm

        Dear Daniel,

        You wrote, “The way I understand the theory of gravity is this: Magnetic force.”

        Gravity is a force that matter exerts on other matter. Magnetic force is generated by a magnetic field. The two forces are different. Gravity is only attractive, but magnetic force can by attractive or repulsive. The North pole attracts the south pole but the north pole repels another north pole. Gravity acts in the direction of a line joining the center of the masses, but the magnetic force on a charged particle acts at right angles to the direction of the magnetic field and the direction of motion.

        You asked, “Are you saying God didn’t bring all the atoms/matter together to form the planets?”

        I’m saying that God did use gravity to bring together the hydrogen atoms into the first generation of stars. There are still a lot of atoms floating around space.

        You asked, “If the time, before the Sun and Moon were created, were not days, then what were they?”

        A day begins and ends at sunset. The Bible says, “The evening and the morning was the first day.”

        Time was created on the first day.
        The universe was dark. God described it as evening. There could not be an earthly, literal day without a sun. Go out on a dark night and you will see the Milky Way. It is the light from the center of our galaxy. It has travelled for 200 million years before reaching your eyes.

        According to Genesis, the stars were made on day four of creation. The fourth day…

        • Daniel
          01 November 2015 @ 4:46 pm

          Richard,

          Thank you for your response.

          “Gravity is only attractive”: I’m not a scientist, but the theory of “Gravity” has never made any sense to me. I can only understand it as Magnetic forces working within the universe; one planet repelling another, and so on. If magnetic properties were absent from any given planet or star, how would they remain in their designated place? Every planet and star has magnetic properties which govern their relative distances from each other; whether repelling or attracting.

          As to the first days of Genesis 1: I’m not sure what book some are reading, but I see the same wording used throughout all the days of creation, and not only after the sun and moon came on the scene.

          Anyway, according to some here, my understanding will be regarded as “nonsense”. Not to worry.

          • Richard Helzerman
            03 November 2015 @ 4:11 pm

            Dear Daniel,
            You wrote: “One planet repelling another.”
            According to Isaac Newton, who lived in the 1600s, the planets go around the sun because they are attracted to the sun by gravity. There is very little interaction between one planet and another. The planets do not have a “designated place.” There are magnetic fields that fill all of space, but they are too weak to be felt or measured directly. We know they are there because of the structure of the galaxies. Some of the planets have magnetic fields but they are too weak to reach the other planets. some do not.
            You wrote: “I see the same wording used throughout all the days of creation, and not only after the sun and moon came on the scene.”

            In Genesis 1:5 the first word day means the light part of the day.
            In Genesis 1:5 the second word day means both the light and the dark part of the day.
            In Genesis 1:14 the first word day means the light part of the day.

            As you have noticed since the same word day is used before and after the sun was created, that word must mean something different than our 24 hour days.

  11. Clyde Bright
    30 October 2015 @ 8:42 pm

    Jesus OT statement regarding creation of this world.

    “After six days of creation; I blessed the sabbath and hallowed it; the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord; do no work on it, do not let your cattle work on it, nor the gentile that is within the boundaries (gates) of your land.” Jesus Christ, Exodus 20:11,10

    The words of Jesus are indisputable when these two verses are reversed.

    “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”

  12. E Ekimi
    31 October 2015 @ 12:27 pm

    Articles like this place stumbling blocks to our living faith and can only put doubt in our Creator’s ability, strength and power.

    Early Writings, Chapter 12 –False Shepherds p124-125: DO NOT go and listen to error –false teachings: “I was shown the necessity of those who believe that we are having the last message of mercy, being separate from those who are daily imbibing new errors. I saw that neither young nor old should attend their meetings; for it is wrong to thus encourage them while they teach error that is a deadly poison to the soul and teach for doctrines the commandments of men. The influence of such gatherings is not good. If God has delivered us from such darkness and error, we should stand fast in the liberty wherewith He has set us free and rejoice in the truth. God is displeased with us when we go to listen to error, without being obliged to go; for unless He sends us to those meetings where error is forced home to the people by the power of the will, He will not keep us. The angels cease their watchful care over us, and we are left to the buffetings of the enemy, to be darkened and weakened by him and the power of his evil angels; and the light around us becomes contaminated with the darkness.

  13. Bryan Richards
    01 November 2015 @ 12:09 pm

    To be very fair… there is no reason to take the bible seriously on ANY existential claim whatsoever. The only parts we do, are where they are corroborated by *other* sources outside the bible… hence not really taking the bible seriously.

    It is a wholly man made concoction that people mistakenly are fleeced by pastors and the church for 10% of their increase. Religion, god, and faith are all shameful marks on humankind.

    • Daniel
      01 November 2015 @ 12:18 pm

      Bryan,

      You wrote: “The only parts we do, are where they are corroborated by *other* sources outside the bible… hence not really taking the bible seriously.”

      And what would be those “other” sources outside the Bible?

    • Elaine Nelson
      01 November 2015 @ 3:00 pm

      God did not create religions. Man devised all the religions since the beginning of time. He created the idea of a transcendent, superior force that gave the natural substances needed for life and this “life force” was worshiped. Sometimes it was the sun, or a rock, or an animal, or other natural objects.

      The Egyptians had a monotheistic god before the Israelites claimed to have only one god. Each religion claims that it is the only “true” one, and with sufficient believers, it gains a following.

      The Bible follows one group of religious believers who wrote their story of origins; but all religions have accounts, oral first, before written, with their history and beliefs. Depending largely on origin of birth, the religion you espouse was an inheritance given you by your place of birth and parentage. Few make a very conscious choice to change their religion which was inherited.

  14. Chris
    01 November 2015 @ 9:23 pm

    I note this in Dr Taylor’s interesting blog:

    “However, what is noteworthy is that the title of the review of these books in the AR is “An Adventist Understanding of Biblical Creation.” The title is not “The Adventist Understanding of Biblical Creation.”

    Dr Taylor then suggests this title may be giving recognition to the range of “interpretations” now resident within Adventism.

    It would be nice to think so, but I just wonder if the use of the term “An Adventist..” may actually be “An Adventist…” as opposed to a non Adventist interpretation. This would fit easily into the almost perennial “us/truth vs them” mentality of the sources Dr Taylor discusses.

    True, there is mention by the AR review of a “number of theologians and scientists within the church [who] have argued that the seven-day creation account should not be taken literally”. And Dr Taylor describes these as Adventist later in the blog, but does the AR see them as such? We could in fact take the “An Adventist..” title as a hint that the author of the review does not consider these said scientists as “Adventist”. In other words, they are outside of “an Adventist” understanding.

    I actually prefer Dr Taylor’s reading of it, but the pessimist in me suspects that the authors under consideration would indeed claim there is such a thing as “The Adventist understanding”, and from that perspective, the scientists spoken about fall outside of such “an Adventist” understanding.

  15. Terry Westerbeck
    01 November 2015 @ 9:35 pm

    I don’t claim to have any great expertise in the are of creation science and can only offer a simple minded thought regarding the creation story. If there is a God and He is big & powerful enough to manage even a small portion of the known universe, He must have an intergalactic truck capable of hauling enough instant soil and turf to landscape little old earth in no time at all and a water truck big enough to fill every stream, pond, lake and ocean in an instant. Lets not make this creation story so mysterious and imaginary. God’s must have nurseries, the equipment and the staff to make any planet into anything He wants, over any period of time He so choses. By the way, how old might the landscaping material be that He transports to any such planet. Relatively speaking the soil on planet earth He could have scraped from under one finger nail and the water could have come from one drop of His sweat. God may even have a galactic sized ranch where He breeds all kinds of animals that He “FedEx’s” to any planet He so desires. And, yes, God probably has the ability to form anything He wants, anytime He wants just from the energy that resides within Him. One thing I do feel strongly about is that God is engaged in a galactic wide cyber war with one of His own, very sophisticated, inventions and He felt it was necessary to come up with some kind of a mechanism to remind them that He was their creator, and He opted to set aside every 7th day as a memorial of their…

  16. Terry Westerbeck
    02 November 2015 @ 4:46 am

    I don’t claim to have any great expertise in the are of creation science and can only offer a simple minded thought regarding the creation story. If there is a God and He is big & powerful enough to manage even a small portion of the known universe, He must have an intergalactic truck capable of hauling enough instant soil and turf to landscape little old earth in no time at all and a water truck big enough to fill every stream, pond, lake and ocean in an instant. Lets not make this creation story so mysterious and imaginary. God must have nurseries, the equipment and the staff to make any planet into anything He wants, over any period of time He so choses. By the way, how old might the landscaping material be that He transports to any such planet. Relatively speaking the soil on planet earth He could have scraped from under one finger nail and the water could have come from one drop of His sweat. God may even have a galactic sized ranch where He breeds all kinds of animals that He “FedEx’s” to any planet He so desires. And, yes, God probably has the ability to form anything He wants, anytime He wants just from the energy that resides within Him. One thing I do feel strongly about is that God is engaged in a galactic wide cyber war with one of His own, very sophisticated, inventions and He felt it was necessary to come up with some kind of a mechanism to remind them that He was their creator, and He opted to set aside every 7th day as a memorial of their origin.

  17. George Saxon
    02 November 2015 @ 6:37 pm

    In the creation discussion no one ever comments about physics. Laws of physics are God’s rules for running the Universe, and they had to be determined before anything else. There was an Earth before the First Day, and water was upon its face. Like it or not, these rules and material were here first. How long did that take, and why was nothing said about these in the creation account? The primordial Earth, and the water depended upon the rules to accomplish their creation.

    • Daniel
      02 November 2015 @ 8:50 pm

      Hi George,

      You wrote: “Laws of physics are God’s rules for running the Universe”. The Laws of Physics include the “Laws of Gravity”; first arrived on the scene by Aristotle; then improved by Galileo and once again by Newton. For me, this “Gravity” theory is nonsense. It makes no sense. You don’t think these same “Gravity” laws would have been used by God, would you?

      I’m not a scientist, have almost no understanding in the Laws of Physics, but I perceive you may, hence your questions.

      If there needed to be Laws which governed the “assembly” of planets and stars, etc, and the running of the Universe, then God would have worked by those certain Laws, which He put in place, that is, in His Mind. What Laws would you say are needed to bring something into existence from nothing? “God spoke, and it was done.” “He commanded and it stood fast”. These are Laws, would you agree?

      “12 Who has measured the waters in the hollow of His hand, measured heaven with a span and calculated the dust of the earth in a measure? Weighed the mountains in scales and the hills in a balance?” Isa.40:12.

      “False weights and measures are an abomination to the LORD”. God made sure everything would work perfectly. Not like scientists would want us to believe—the big bang. Now they certainly do use “false weights and measures”, do they not?

      Let me ask you this: What makes you say “There was an Earth before the First Day, and water was upon its face.”? Do you get that from Genesis 1?

    • Yudelis
      03 November 2015 @ 9:33 am

      I wholehartedly agree!!

      Thank you for your perspective!

      Life on earth is most definitely much younger than the earth/water/universe!

      I just can’t prove that. Yet.

  18. John McLarty
    03 November 2015 @ 10:09 pm

    Erv’s central point–that there is a variety of views among Adventist creationists can be easily demonstrated by asking the question, “How old is the earth?” The answer used to be 6000 years. Now, the official answer is “recent.” You can find at least one article on the BRI site that explicitly rejects the Genesis genealogies as reliable chronologies. Does “recent” apply to the basic matter of the earth or simply to the fossil-bearing rocks? You can find proponents of both views in the employment of the church. Were the sun, moon and stars created on the fourth day? Most Adventist theologians say, no. Did the Flood create all the fossils? According to Kurt Wise, the non-Adventist brought in to the conference in Utah last year to instruct Adventist teachers and administrators, only the Paleozoic and Mesozoic fossils were formed by the Flood. The Cenozoic fossils were formed after the Flood. Enough differences here to keep Adventist conservatives arguing long after all us liberals have died off.

  19. Edwin A. Schwisow
    05 November 2015 @ 12:06 pm

    It’s interesting that the primary “evolution” in Adventist circles (regarding creation) is in the interpretation of an account that some believe must be held as absolutely literal. The primary view even among mainstream conservatives today is that it makes sense to at least take parts of the Genesis account as non-literal. It also is clear to this child (and has been since I started reading the Bible for myself at an early age) that much of the book of Genesis is a matter of comparison and contrast; our God did all this, all by himself, he is a Great God! Or, “Our patriarchs and kings lived immense spans of years, expressed in massive numbers. We are greatly blessed! In the Great Controversy between Jehovah and polytheism, back in those ancient times, the focus was on the greatness of God, even as Ellen White’s “The Great Controversy” focus on specific players (to the exclusion of others, such as Islam). Rarely is a piece of literature written without a specific target in mind, and clearly the book of Genesis is absolutely dedicated to proving the existence of one omnipotent God, who created the cosmos.

    As to the evolution of Adventist thought on creationism, I remember my mother and father jousting verbally to a fare-thee-well on the question of the preexistence of matter, before the creation week occurred. I was amazed that they would take such exception to one-another’s viewpoints on a question that didn’t matter a great deal to me, either then or now.