What’s the Problem with Adventist Fundamental Belief No. 6? Part II
by Ervin Taylor
In Part II of this blog, I’d like to address what, in my view, would appear to be a second major reason why certain politically well-connected Adventists want, need and are currently working hard to make sure that the wording of FB#6 is made more explicit. The hypothesis is that an important reason for their efforts has much to do with the perceived need to reinforce the authoritative status of Ellen White as a means of maintaining classical Adventist theology as the cornerstone of traditional Adventist identity.
On this and another website with an oxymoronic name, it has been alleged that some comments of the writer reveals that he has a “problem” with Ellen G. White (EGW).
Let us here be explicit: EGW was a sincere but troubled Christian woman who, beginning in her teen-age years, had a series of out-of-body experiences or “visions.” What exactly caused these visions is a matter of dispute. We probably will never be able to exactly pin that down to the satisfaction of everyone. Whatever caused them, EGW viewed these experiences as being communications from God. More importantly, the individuals who formed her social reference group believed that her visionary states represented communications from God. (Interestingly, that opinion was not shared by EGW’s twin sister). Together with several other strong-willed individuals, one of whom became her husband, the formation of a small 19th Century American religious community was eventually accomplished. That small faith community eventually evolved into the Seventh-day Adventist denomination.
Historical research over the last four or five decades have uncovered a significant amount of evidence that the experiences reported by EGW were not all that unique in certain parts of 19th century America. For example, a decade earlier, another set of visions were described by a young man living about 100 miles from EGW. His experiences were responsible for the creation of another indigenous American faith tradition: the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons).
Visionary episodes of the type EGW experienced have been regarded as manifestations of the divine in both pre-modern and early modern societies. Other scholars have noted that “fits, trances, and visions” (to borrow a phrase from Ann Taves) have been reported as occurring in many cultures. Visions continue to be expected parts of an intense religiosity of various religious systems both Christian and non-Christian. However, there was and is a great diversity in the specific beliefs that result from these visionary experiences.
The point being advanced here is that “visions” of various types should not be considered to be an unusual phenomenon in the history of religion. In fact, they are probably responsible for the creation of most religious systems including the Abrahamic faiths. Thus, there should be no hesitancy in accepting the statements from EGW that she experienced vivid visionary states. The question is what are we to make of the statements she made on a whole range of topics as the result of these visions. Are her conclusions and understandings to be considered authoritative for contemporary Adventist Christians? Some Adventists would answer “absolutely yes”, others would answer “absolutely not”, and some would answer that they are “not sure.” I personally would be comfortable with a “no” answer.
Officially, the Adventist Church has avoided explicitly insisting that EGW views should be regarded as being on the level of the Bible. However, in popular Adventist culture, her authority, for all practical purposes, is essentially considered co-equal with the Bible.
On the other side, a number of Adventist scholars have called for the EGW literary legacy to be reenvisioned and refocused away from EGW as an authoritative oracle to EGW as an inspirational devotional writer.
These comments dealing with EGW have been made in the context of positing that a major factor in the current efforts of Adventist traditionalists to change the language of FB#6 is the perception that the theological authority of EGW is at more than serious risk, it is at a kind of critical tipping point.
I don’t think anyone would question that EGW believed in a recent creation “about six thousand years ago” and that this creation took place in six literal days. She reported several visions where she reported that she had gone back in time and personally witnessed events transpiring in in the early years of this world.
Against that, many scientifically-trained Adventists dispute the validity of that belief and their objections are now well known as they have been noted in various Adventist media including the Adventist Review. The importance of the issue is reflected in the approximately $1 million a year which is spent by the Adventist General Conference supporting the Geoscience Research Institute (GRI). The task of the GRI is essentially to seek scientific validation for EGW’s views about earth history, i.e., young life Creationism. Despite the tens of millions of dollars expended, the efforts of the GRI has been widely deemed to have been an abject failure in that after more than 40 years of effort, there has been an admission that no viable scientific evidence has been produced by the GRI to call into question the standard geological time scale. In the minds of traditionalists, that fact and the challenge of objections by church members in good and regular standing to a position clearly held by EGW creates a dire threat to the whole fabric of the SDA theological enterprise. Also a large cohort of Adventist theologians have expressed the view that an accurate understanding of inspiration is that inspired declarations sometimes include erroneous statements of historical and scientific fact.
Regretfully it appears that the answer to this threat by the currently dominant party in institutional Adventism at the General Conference level is not to rethink what EGW was reflecting upon when she reported her visions. On the contrary, they appear to be doubling down by seeking to codify in explicit language a literalistic interpretation of a Biblical passage in Genesis as endorsed by EGW. They believe that by putting the “right” words in a section of the Adventist Creed, i.e., the 6th statement of Adventist fundamental beliefs, they will somehow achieve what decades of largely misdirected efforts have heretofore not been able to accomplish.
I invite comments on this hypothesis as to what motivates efforts to make FB#6 into another Adventist fundamentalist slogan.
Excellent insights and I suspect a very accurate assessment of EGW roles in light of FB6.
"..what motivates efforts to make FB#6 into another Adventist fundamentalist slogan."?
Built on what you have outlined I would say "Fear".
Fear of the loss of credibility for EGW.
Fear that if FB6 is not shored up with adequate "authority" it will begin a domino effect. Not just exhibited in the tipping over the "critical point" for EGW, but the next port of call being the authority of the Bible on the issue.
I love the saying "argument weak – shout loud". The more those who fear the "…admission that no viable scientific evidence has been produced by the GRI to call into question the standard geological time scale…" – the greater they push backward in the opposite direction. That means tidying up loose terminology, going on the offensive in promoting EGW, and generally clouding the issue by making a lot of noise in the guise of spirituality.
A great blog and looking forward to reading what comes.
The moderator may delete this as being too much "over the top," but I'm not sure how seriously SDA's should take the comments of someone who does not believe in the SOP, but does believe in evolution. To go down his road is to destroy the SDA Church.
There are plenty of scientists who do not accept the evolutionary mumbo jumbo, but you guys always discount their findings and opinions. The fact that the majority of scientists have accepted the evolutionary fairy tale does not make their findings valid. They are just as capable of misinterpreting the evidence today as they have been for centuries.
I'll take the Bible over "science" any day. It has not failed us yet, and no amount of scientific "discoveries" can change that. Call me a Bible thumping fundamentalist if you wish, but I’ve seen nothing in my 60+ years that would cause me to change my mind. And I haven’t been living in an SDA “commune” or bubble all my life, either.
This is my concern – that it becomes an either/or debate. We must believe Ellen White was a true prophet and science is rubbish, or we have to believe Ellen White was a false prophet and science is true. I don't accept it has to be either/or.
I accept Ellen White as a true prophet according to the biblical model. However, that doesn't mean I think she was taking God's divine dictation. Her visions were divine, but the person who put those visions into words certainly very human.
I don't judge Mrs White any harsher than I do other biblical prophets (and that term itself is loaded), including:
The Bible is a rich tapestry of different ‘inspired’ portraits of God through a myriad of times, cultures and historical circumstances. Judged against her biblical peers (not against made-up criteria by critics and fundamentalists alike), Ellen White fits within that ongoing tradition.
The truth is, the SDA Church admittedly looks cultish by having a contemporary prophet. But upon closer examination, without Ellen White: i) it is highly doubtful there would be a SDA Church still; and ii) we would theologically be more cultish, not less, as Ellen White actually served as a major restraint against some of the crazier views of our early pioneers.
I have much respect for her – but she was also just an imperfect human being – albeit an inspired one.
A good summary of what I believe. Whether the majority of church members can be so convinced remains to be seen.
Stephen, A reasonable response. Thank you. I would also question Erv's credibility due to his strong bias with no record (that I can remember) of giving others the benefit of the doubt.
Ervin, I probably disagree with some of your comments about Ellen White. I do think she was a prophet according to the biblical model. The problem is that both critics and strict adherents do not apply a biblical model to what a prophet does and does not supposedly do.
In the late 19th cent. – early 20th cent. scholars (especially non-Adventist) viewed prophets as inspired, creative individuals who brought something new to Israelite religion, i.e. an emphasis on ethics and monotheism; and there was an interest in the prophetic (“ecstatic”) experience. Modern biblical scholarship (again by non-Adventists) increasingly acknowledges prophets drew on earlier tradition to proclaim the word of God for their contemporary situation.
The more I review contemporary thoughts on biblical prophecy (again by non-Adventist scholars), the more I am convinced that it was certainly possible that Ellen White was a prophet according to the biblical model – not less likely.
The whole issue with the Adventist position on YEC is not really about Fundamental Belief #6 at all. Rather, it is the fear that any other position would undermine the Church’s teachings about the gift of prophecy and Ellen White in particular under #18.
Again, if people had a truly biblical understanding of how prophecy doesn’t work, they would not think the whole Adventist theological framework would come collapsing down as many tell us (like your old friend Clifford Goldstein).
Prophets are not scientists – they weren’t in the OT, weren’t in the NT, and weren’t in the 19th and 20th Centuries eithers. Prophets are there for the edification of the Church, a job Ellen White did exceptionally well. In fact, she ‘invented’ not many of our Fundamental Beliefs, and in some cases (such as Arianism and Legalism), actually help drive the Church towards ‘mainstream’ orthodoxy – not away from it.
The biggest challenge to the traditional veneration of Ellen White is not the small number who oppose her, but the large masses who neither know nor care what she wrote. Many young people in the west – outside the very conservative groups – have never read anything she wrote. Many long-term seemingly orthodox adult SDAs rarely read her works. Her works are either not available or too expensive for many in developing countries, and those who do buy her works often use them more as status symbols and visible tokens of orthodoxy than as actual reading material.
I do not believe in infallible prophets, but do believe a lot of people are missing out on what is a very helpful resource within the church. Perhaps rather than defending her and her position as an inspired and infallible authority, we would find her read more widely – and perhaps even followed – if we did promote her as a great devotional writer and her writings as the best repository of what is often the best of SDA tradition.
Exactly. I can attest (as a 'young person from the West') that the vast majority of my generation have basically never really read anything about Ellen White. We were raised by parents who had a gutful of 'Mrs White says…', when their own parents shoved it down their throats. The sad fact is the baby really has been thrown out with the bath water.
In part one of this blog, Dr. Taylor questioned the need for this Belief #6 in the first place and—now that it has been stated as a Belief—also questioned the need for making it more explicit in terms of describing the time frame in which creation week occurred.
Now he surmises that the reason for any such changes would be to reinforce the perception and role of Ellen White to/for Seventh-day Adventists.
The factual flaw in this hypothesis is that—with the exception of the words “Thus He established the Sabbath as a perpetual memorial of His completed creative work—this particular belief is in fact a commonly held belief among conservative evangelical/fundamentalist Christians all over the world; most of whom have never heard of Ellen White, or Seventh-day Adventists for that matter, and thus has nothing whatever to do with EGW.
So then, is Dr. Taylor saying that the changes he anticipates being proposed (based on his reporting?) are changes that would reinforce the perception and unique role of EGW, because she is the only Christian writer who has concluded that the world as we now know it was created in six literal 24-hour days within the last 10,000 years?
Stephen,
Are you aware of the SDA connection with creationism? If you are, you know that there is a very strong connection between creationism in American fundamentalism and the SDA church. If you don't know that, perhaps it is time for some research. Defending Ellen White was a significant part of this from the beginning. Yes, the Bible says 'six days' and at least implies '6,000 years', but so much of the Bible is capable of (re)interpretation that you have to ask, 'why not Genesis 1?' Why is OEC acceptable to SDAs? Does it have something to do with being compatible with Ellen White's views?
Timo, this was exactly what I was starting to think about when they introduced the last one. What really are the 'essentials' of the SDA faith, the essence of the Gospel, the 3 Angels' Message that supposedly we are to preach to the world? I believe in Ellen White but I don't think to either believe or not believe in her is a 'fundamental' we should enforce at a creedal level (if our 28 Fundamentals have become a de facto creed). I probably don’t agree with either Horace or Ervin exactly on this one, but I respect both of them, and certainly consider both of them brothers in the Seventh-day Adventist Movement.
I have recently wondered if we should be stripping our message ‘back to basics’, encompassing seven points:
I think everything else is commentary we can discuss to the cows come home.
And I should just add, if you really could get inside many Adventists, in a moment of total honesty, I would think many, many of them would question at least one or more of the 28 Fundamentals – whether it be Ellen White on the 'liberal' side, or nature of God and Jesus Christ on the 'conservative side'. To that extent the 28 Fundamentals are not really our 'fundamentals' at all. In reality, we have another layer of more fundamental, fundamentals, of the type of the seven I noted.
I am not clear if you are addressing my post or what; but since you attached your post to mine, I will take for granted that you are.
Bear in mind that it seems to me that Dr. Taylor wants to make this about Ellen White—but it isn’t. This is, once again, about the Bible.
As for any supposed reliance on James Ussher, what of it (or so what)? Since practically no one believes that inspiration is routinely dictated verbatim by God, what would her researching—or even “plagiarizing” if you prefer—have to do with anything?
The thing is; the Bible stands alone, regardless or irrespective of EGW; or anyone. Its claims are sufficient unto themselves, or at least that’s what most Protestants believe.
It is interesting how some Adventists position things as if EGW is the reason why the Bible says what it says, when in fact the reverse is true.
It is the Biblical account and the belief in it with which there is an issue. White is merely the scapegoat.
Yes, this is how the debate should be conducted – according to the Bible alone. However, this is not how the debate is being debate in practice – with Ellen White's statements forming a central part of it.
I can see a not-too-distant time when–having chiseled a more exclusionary version of FB #6 into stone–the GC Purge Engine will shift into high gear and wield it as a bludgeon to further separate the tares from the wheat, as we have already witnessed at LSU. What a sad day for a church that considers itself to be God's remnant.
Conflation.
This, to me, is the problem with this hypothesis. The issue isn't Ellen G. White or her visions. The FB is based on what the Bible says, explicitly, time and again, in both the Old and New Testaments. A problem would exist had Mrs. White posited something demonstably different (regarding creation) than what the Bible says.
The hypothesis reads, to me, as if Mrs. White created creation and the General Conference of SDA can't prove it (neither, notably, has it been disproved), creating the need for a desparate institutional cover-up.
Mrs. White is a self-admitted lesser light to the Bible. Again, it seems to me that the scandal, if any, would be a function of a contradiction between the two, in this case, about creation itself and its timeline.
Preston I agree the YEC-OEC debate shouldn't be about Ellen White. However, I do believe it is largely being turned into a debate about Ellen White. You see this in official SDA statements, including from Goldstein to Pres Wilson, who say belief in anything by YEC would in effect destroy our fundamental beliefs on the Sabbath and Ellen White.
I personally don't know what I believe on YEC-OEC. However, I don't believe rejection of YEC would destroy the SDA Church and the fundamental beliefs on the Sabbath and Ellen White either. But the official SDA leaders are indeed saying those things.
I have long thought that we are a bit like ' worshiping' EGW in church when her writtings are given especially when bible verse's are not also in sermons but her saying alone. It seems a bit like the Mary Mother of Jesus worship that occurs in other churches….we do the same thing almost at times – making her some saint above normal humans too much that we leave God's word out of our message. Some things she has written are certanily very helpfull , i do not disregard that but yes our message needs to be with the Love of Jesus at the center & GOd's creation / eternity plan and not just EGW ideas alone …………..I also know that some things she wrote have been witheld from publication for a number of reasons which also has to quesion why & who has the right to decide such things. She was only human with special blessings that she shared as do many others to our benefit in different ways be it music, writtings & such shared talents. So yes i am always have been a bit put off by the almost worship type sermons & sabbath school lessons we have occasionally that only have EGW praised above what the bible says .
I think that, in educated circles at least, Ellen White fulfills more the role of Thomas Aquinas for similar circles in Roman Catholicism. I hear/see RCs say/write "As St Thomas says…" in much the same way as SDAs say "Ellen White says …" It is basically a case of establishing one author as the representative, or definitive, carrier of church tradition. Ellen White is basically our 'Church Mother' in parallel to the catholic 'Church Fathers'. And like them, when used thoughtfully, she can be a blessing to those who take the time to work through the issues. We should never dismiss out of hand those whom God has used to further the growth of the church, but neither should we simply bow before their thoughts as if the Holy Spirit has decided he is no longer needed for guidance and we are left alone with merely written words to read and obey.
Not sure what church you attend, sandra, but it doesn't sound like any SDA Church I've ever attended; and I've attended many over the years. What I've seen is a sermon founded upon Scripture, with SOP quotes to help illustrate the speaker's points, and flesh out the subject. And, in case you haven't noticed, lately our SS quarterlies are more likely to quote from non-SDA sources than from the SOP. It appears as if you find what you're looking for, no matter what the reality is.
Much of what you said about Ellen White could also apply to Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, et. al. And then there was Nathan the prophet–and virtually nothing that he said ever made it into Scripture. Why was it withheld? Was there a conspiracy?
I don't doubt the existence of such churches – I grew up in one. But I do believe (and sincerely hope) that they have become less common. I believe that far more damage has been done to Ellen White by her 'supporters' than by her detractors. That seems to have started very early in her career and continues today. The neglect of Ellen White's writings today is as much – probably more – a result of those who were over-zealous in promoting them as it is the result of her critics' work.
I agree with Kevin. I am in my early 30's. My parents’ generation were smashed over the head with Mrs White when they were young (of the type of circumstance Sandra is talking about). As a result, in our Church (biggest Church in our Conference), Ellen White is rarely mentioned at all, and when she is, there is a certain level of squeamishness. The same goes for mention of SDA eschatology (i.e. mark of the beast etc.), health and a whole range of Adventist distinctive. Because the ‘baby has been thrown out with the bath water’, many in my generation no absolutely nothing about these things – absolutely zero!
Adventist Church (which we are now seeing):
When I did my own research, I was interested to discover that the Church leaders who actually knew Ellen White personally had a very balanced view of her and acknowledged her limitations. SDA President AG Daniels, who knew her personally quite well, and had helped in the publication of some of her writings, stated in the now infamous 1919 Bible Conference:
“Well, now, as I understand it, Sister White never claimed to be an authority on history, and never claimed to be a dogmatic teacher on theology, like Mrs Eddy’s book on teaching. She just gave out fragmentary statements, but left the pastors and evangelists and preachers to work out all these problems of scripture and of theology and of history…” (emphasis added)
http://adventistcultmisconceptions.blogspot.com.au/2011/03/35-does-sda-church-teach-that-ellen-g_11.html
J. N. Anderson almost prophetically warned that perpetuating the incorrect view of the literal verbal inspiration of Ellen White would one day produce a crisis within the
“Is it well to let out people in general go on holding to the verbal inspiration of the Testimonies? When we do that, aren’t we preparing for a crisis that will be very serious some day.” (emphasis added)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1919_Bible_Conference
This whole notion of an infallible, verbal inspired prophet was not what Ellen White’s own friends and supporters ever thought of her. Rather, it was an invention of the next generation after her death, influenced by the rising American ‘Fundamentalist’ Movement in the early 20th Century.
Timo asked:
"Is it possible that viewing Sabbath as a monument to creation of things (in 6 days, ~6000 years ago) misses the point, entirely?"
Sabbath was never mentioned as a creation monument until Moses received the Decalogue, a few thousand years later (Ussher chronology), and neither the patriarchs before or until Sinai ever indicated a sabbath was commanded of them.
It is astonishing how much liberty is taken with Scripture when there is such earnestness to discover religious reasons long afterward in an effort to prove prior belief and practice. Retrospective doctrinal beliefs have thus been supported by such human editing for the unwary to confirm the rightfulness of stated belief.
Thus has EGW been used, abused and misused to support all sorts of unscriptural rules and the uninitiated, faithful have dutifully obeyed, like blind sheep, never questioning "Why?" Those who dare have found that Empress Ellen has invisible clothes.
It has been humorously remarked that the book, "Ellen White Says" is the largest in the SDA library collection.
Actually Elaine, many non-Adventist scholars (including those who think Gen 1-2:1 was written by the 'preistly source' compared with the 'Yawist' source of Gen 2 [not that I say I 100% agree with that]) have long argued that the whole point of Gen 1 is the Sabbath. The Sabbath is the punchline in the creation account.
By the way, I don't think the Sabbath commandment suddenly loses its purpose and meaning if YEC was rejected in favour of OEC.
OK, let’s imagine that Ellen White’s writing on the subject of creation was to disappear and memory of whatever she wrote was erased from the minds of all.
How would that make a difference as to how the Genesis narrative is perceived by those who read, interpret, and believe it to have been literally the truth?
Remember, the vast majority of people who (interpret and) believe the Genesis narrative is true have never heard of Ellen White.
(Could the problem some may have be that EGW connects the dots between the Sabbath and the six day creation narrative? These dots and this line had been drawn by scripture; White merely traced it.)
Stephen, I think even without Ellen White there would still be a strong cultural resistance to abandoning YEC because of the Sabbath issue – as you have rightly observed. However, I think there would be less resistance to abandoning YEC. As not in several comments about, Gen 1 and 2 are ambiguous, such as the meaning of the word ‘day’ (‘yom’), which can have several meanings. Rather, it is the apparent unequivocal nature of Ellen White’s statement on the issue that is a major problem for many Adventists.
To remove Ellen White from the equation does still leave the Sabbath limb, but it does remove half the argument.
No one on ‘both sides’ of this debate can underestimate Ellen White’s impact. The two limbs of seventh-day Sabbath and Ellen White are routinely touted by SDA Church leaders, including Goldstein and President Wilson, as the reasons why Adventists must accept YEC. That is why people like Ervin might feel it necessary to question Ellen White herself (why would he bother if she wasn’t an issue in this debate).
Ellen White's statements is the bottom line for many conservative SDAs. They are willing to accept that teh Bible might be open to different interpretations, but EGW isn't.
Indeed, which is the problem. As you rightly say Kevin, some of Ellen White's supporters are her biggest problem. They apply inflexible and unrealistic criteria to statements, which of course upon detailed examination she can't live up to – like her statements that masturbation causes cancer. Then her critics jump on those inflexible and unrealistic criteria and say – their, see, she must be a false prophet.
It reminds me of the debate between extreme athiests, like Prof Richard Dawkins, against extreme fundamentalist Christians. The majority of more moderate and sensible Christians get totally left out of the debate, it becomes polarized, and the majority population wrongly thinks it is an either/or issue when it doesn't have to be.
We are indeed getting somewhere now, because it seems that the concern is not so much with the YEC as it is with the Sabbath and Ellen White.
If Adventists didn’t subscribe to Ellen White’s view of creation, then they would more readily abandon the six literal day belief. If they could more readily abandon the six literal day creation belief, the justification for the Sabbath would be effectively eviscerated.
Meanwhile other conservative evangelical/fundamentalist Christians who subscribe to YEC and/or the six literal day creation narrative already ignore or disregard the Sabbath, so there’s no problem with them.
Interesingly, many conservative Adventists think that when the Bible is viewed as the authority by which other learning is evaluated and authenticated, and that if Exodus 20:1 literally occurred—and Moses was not conning the children of Israel—then God literally created the world we know in six days; because He said so, not Ellen White. Further, if we, as Adventists, could connect the dots for other Bible believers, this would be a good thing. Imagine that.
Stephen, excuse my own idiocy, but what are you saying exactly? Are you noting that other non-Adventist groups arrive at a YEC position, even though they do not believe the seventh-day Sabbath or in Ellen White. Therefore, the seventh-day Sabbath and Ellen White should not be the defining shibboleths (distinctive beliefs) upon which Adventists think this whole debate hangs?
(You are not an idiot my friend.) You are partially correct, in that clearly I don’t think that Ellen White is, or should be, the defining distinctive belief upon which a six day literal creation belief hangs; in contrast to Ervin Taylor’s view that for some SDAs, she is.
However, I certainly do believe that the literal six day creation week is the defining belief on which the Sabbath hangs.
It seems to me that this whole issue would become nothing more than a tempest in a teapot if we simply obeyed Ellen White's instruction for us to study the Bible and the Bible only, and to use it as the sole basis for every teaching and belief.
Would that this was so William; however Ellen White’s ministry was necessitated because none of us study the Bible as we should, much less “use it as the sole basis for every teaching and belief.”
Timo, I have no problem with being quoted; but I do have a problem with being misquoted or misrepresented. I did not use any of White’s statements or chronology in any way; much less Ussher’s. My reference to Ussher was for purposes of discounting the import or impact of White’s reliance on him or anyone else.
I am personally more concerned with the six days than I am with the 6,000 years, to be candid with you. Six literal creation days has a specific scriptural reference; multiple scriptural references, in fact.
Erv – Thank you for this blog. I appreciate the sensitive treatment of Ellen White, and the way you dissected her prophetic role in the formation of the Adventist Church from the pedagogical use of her to validate institutional authority.
I would differ with you slightly, Erv, in that I don't think the FB #6 agenda is really about Ellen White's authority any more ideological agendas culled from the Gospels are truly about making Jesus, qua Jesus, the central authority. The FB #6 agenda simply uses Ellen White to fight a proxy battle for Institutional authority. Those who wage this battle believe that the raison d'etre for Adventism is its unique beliefs. In their minds, the church is validated in its ability to propagate and nurture correct, distinctive beliefs rather than in its witness of distinctively transformed lives and faith communities.
Unlike Biblical writings, Ellen White's writings have thrived and survived as a result of institutional authority and efforts. Most Biblical writings seem to have been generated and survived despite intense persecution and suppression by the institutional authorities which they challenged and threatened. The institution's use of Ellen White embraced her from the beginning, and tended toward encapsulation and constriction of her revelation. The Biblical prophetic paradigm, on the other hand, seldom affirmed and reinforced institutional needs and priorities. Biblical prophecy consistently challenged the institutional religious authority within which it operated. The Biblical prophets repeatedly forced those who would know God to leave their doctrinal and institutional redoubts to seek a God that was always near, but also elusive, and resistant to the clutches of institutional powers.
If you want to find contemporary parallels to Biblical prophets, look to Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Mohandas Ghandi, Martin Luther King,Jr., or Mother Teresa. If you believe that the Bible is a tabletop puzzle or a paint-by-number sketch, and are looking for a nice, coherent boxtop photograph to help you fit the pieces together or paint a pretty picture, then you will probably find Ellen White's images very helpful.
"Those who wage this battle believe that the raison d'etre for Adventism is its unique beliefs. In their minds, the church is validated in its ability to propagate and nurture correct, distinctive beliefs rather than in its witness of distinctively transformed lives and faith communities."
The raison d'etre for Adventism includes both the propagation of our “distinct beliefs” and the “witness of distinctively transformed lives and faith communities.” The presentation as an either/or for these dual and inextricably linked goals just leapfrogged to frontrunner status as false choice of the year.
You take Mother Teresa, I’ll take Ellen White. No wonder we seldom agree on anything:).
If you think that The Great Controversy paints a pretty picture, then your tastes are quite eclectic, shall we say?
I quite agree, Stephen, that I did posit a false choice. I did so for rhetorical reasons, to underscore what I believe to be misplaced priorities on the part of those who want to change FB #6. As I recall, you want to leave FB #6 as is.
It was not my intent to elevate Mother Teresa above Ellen White, but to suggest that many contemporary "prophet" types fit the Biblical prophet archetype much better than Ellen White, who really doesn't fit the pattern at all.
Thanks for the clarification on the false choice Nathan. I understand.
As for prophets, how can it be possible that a (contemporary) prophet in the Biblical model or tradition or archetype pattern is not elevated over one who is not so considered?
This is to say, essentially, that I disagree with your characterization and assessment of these individuals versus that of Ellen White.
I am fine with FB#6 as it is. It ain’t broke; why fix it? Erv seems to think that “they” want to fix it to reemphasize Ellen White. There is no evidence for this hypothesis.
"If they could more readily abandon the six literal day creation belief, the justification for the Sabbath would be effectively eviscerated."
There is sufficient "justification" from the Bible alone. In the several accounts of the giving of the commandments, including the Fourth, it was given as (1) a reminder of the six days of creation; (2) as a reminder that you were a servant in the land of Egypt (servants worked 24/7 and rest was not for them).
As a memorial of creation, it was first mentioned in the Decalogue, and God never gave it to Adam and Eve as a reminder of creation as it was God who had completed six days of work and rested on the seventh, not man.
The setting aside of one day of the week does not hinge on a long or short creation, but as a law first given to the Jews by Moses who referred back to the six days of creation (but if Moses also wrote Genesis then he was not the first to record that it took six days) the same length of time recorded in the Babylonian story of creation told nearly a millennium before. What a coincidence!
The Sabbath must rely on the Hebrew Bible for the first account of sabbath as the Gentile Christians were not observant of any day as holy or sacred. IOW: there has never been a Christian sabbath: it is, and always will be a very special Jewish day.
Hi Elaine. I would agree that the biblical basis for the seventh-day Sabbath does not need to rely on a YEC model. However, I would disagree that the Sabbath was not given to Adam and Eve (I also think they could have been literal people even under an OEC model) or that we should only conceptually view the Sabbath as a Jewish commandment.
The seventh-day Sabbath is an image or memorial for all humankind of God's creative activity – a memorial is not the same as the real thing. Mankind creates every 6×24 period and rests every 7thx24 period weekly in imitation of God. We also do it over and over again.
However, that is not to say that God's one-off own 6 ‘days’ ('yom') of creation were 24-hour periods. The whole of Gen 1 and 2 is about mankind imitating God. But when we start equating mankind's creative activities and rest periods with God's, then we are coming close to thinking we are like gods or are like the Most High.
On that basis, I would go on a limb and actually argue that the notion of a weekly seventh-day Sabbath in fact best fits with a OEC model rather than a YEC model.
That's about the most convoluted explanation I've ever heard for denying the obvious intent of Genesis 1. And, as usual, Elaine's objections to the Sabbath are based on liberal and apostate Protestant arguments, which have become more inventive as time goes on. But their validity is just as dubious as ever.
Horace, I am not necessarily saying YEC couldn't be true. What I am saying if the seventh-day Sabbath command would not cause the Adventist theological framework to come crashing down if YEC wasn't true. If there were two interpretations of a Bible text, and one fitted with science, I can see why many would adopt the interpretation that fitted with science rather than the one against it.
Both you are Elaine appear to be effectively on the same side – saying scripture and science are incompatible. I don’t by it has to be an either/or scenario.
Ervin, you’re really clutching at straws now and becoming highly inventive and imaginative (like a true fiction writer) in order to try to defend the indefensible – that you can somehow marry long ages and evolution with Adventism.
Give up while you’re ahead. Just accept that Adventism is not what you want it to be. It is not going to change. In fact, the conservative (historic, traditional) crowd is growing in number and their voice is getting louder. The split is coming closer each day.
Church history tends to be cyclical. I would not count on present trends continuing over the long term. A surprising number of children grow up and reject the direction their parents were taking them in. That is why neither liberals nor fundamentalists have established a permanent hold on any institution.
Church history may be cyclical, but God has a timetable, and Scripture says that He will cut short the work in righteousness. At some point He will blow the whistle, pull the plug, whatever. The end time crisis will put an end to any cyclical activity and there will be only 2 groups: those who loyal to God and those who aren't.
And I agree with pagophilus. Dr. Taylor really is grasping at straws. Maybe he's under conviction? I wonder the same thing about Dawkins, who is so rabid in his support for evolution.
I am not persuaded God is solely on the side of the conservatives, nor that they are the only ones loyal to God. According to the usual rhetoric, if God is on their side, their numbers should be getting smaller – they should not be growing in numbers.
God can use anybody, including people of other faiths. However He is leading them in one direction. That direction is not into disbelieving that He exists, that He created the universe as He said He did (in 6 days), and that He destroyed the world in a worldwide flood as He said He did.
Dawkins is also clutching at straws. Both he and Ervin Taylor seem to come out with way-out-there fanciful arguments to try to prove a point. Why try so hard? What are they afraid of? A bunch of 6-day creation-believing loonies? Are we really such a threat to society?
Good points in that I don't think there is anything wrong with believe in YEC and I don't think such views are a three to society? But I should ask you the same in reverse? If someone rejects YEC but claims to still believe in God and wants to be a SDA, are those people loonies and are they a threat to society and the Church?
The problem is not that SDA's who reject (or more likely question) YEC are trying to get others to also reject YEC. Rather, it is because the officials of the SDA Church, including Goldstein, Pres Wilson and a whole host of others, say you can't be a SDA if you don't accept YEC.
But are they believing in a god of their own making? Or are they being intellectually dishonest? The Adventist faith, taken plainly and don’t without manipulation, requires belief in a 6-day creation because the Sabbath is tied to creation week. To see it differently requires mental gymnastics of a.high order.
Erv,
This is one of your best blogs. Good analysis. Numbers' "The Creationists" traces the history of creationism and "creation science" and it is clear that (contrary to Stephen Foster) EGW played a major role in this effort to create "out of thin air" a "science" defending a 6000 year creation; this view that developed out of Adventism (EGW) was later picked up and propagated by non-SDA fundamentalists. I think Ferguson and Schilt also make important contributions to this discussion, as there certainly is a defensiveness about EGW that goes beyond FB#6 (and includes generational reactionary aspects) and that also ties in to church authority/power.
RT1,
When one looks at the NASA site and understands that Hubble is looking at extinct stars over 10 billion yrs into the past the idea of YEC evaporates. How can anyone look at vast distances in the universe and the fact that we are seeing "images" of extinct stars where the light is just now hitting our detection instruments and yet cling to this 6000 yr creation story? What to defend the sabbath doctrine?
Doctorf,
The Sabbath has nothing at all to do with a 6,000 year chronology.
Genesis 1:2 clearly indicates that before the commencement of The Week’s activities, that “the earth was without form, and void…” and gives absolutely no indication for how long.
Stephen,
The literal 6 day creation story is an underpinning for the sabbath doctrine. I have often heard from conservatives that meaningful sabbath worship is not possible without the 6 day creation. The creation of sabbath came after the creation stories. In the end the sabbath like many other doctrines of the SDA church is created by man. Not God.
Hi Horace, perhaps my earlier explanation was indeed too convoluted, so let me try again…
Many modern Christians such as Elaine try to argue that the Sabbath was only instituted at Mount Sinai, not at creation, and thus only applies to Jews and not the rest of us. I on the other hand believe ALL God’s Moral Law has always existed and always will exist, although it has existed in different guises, including 10 Tables of Stone, in 2 Great Commandments, and eventually under the New Covenant written in each of our hearts. Thus, I obviously believe all of the Moral Law, including the Sabbath, existed at Eden.
If you look at Eden, the 1st 4 Commandments, about worshipping God, they effectively entailed worship through imitation. For example:
In Eden, mankind worships God through imitation. This of course poses a degree of danger, because mankind might start to think that he is no longer an image of God but IS God. That is why the Tree of Knowledge exists. Mankind failed that test in the same way Lucifer did.
When we look at the Sabbath, it is another imitation ritual for mankind. We do it weekly as a lesser and continual acknowledgement of God’s creative ‘week’, which was not necessarily limited to 6 x 24 hours. The Bible attests that God’s days are not the same as human days (2 Pet. 3:8).
We can see that God’s days are not the same as ours by the simple fact that God’s Sabbath started at the end of His creative period and has never ceased – note there is no evening and morning formula in Gen. 2:1-3. Ever since then, mankind has been given dominion to rule over this world (which we gave to Lucifer, and which Christ had to redeem back). Because God has been in His Sabbath rest continuously, it is vital that we acknowledge God every weekly 7th day as our Creator.
For those who accept evolution (not saying I necessarily do), the need to acknowledge God as Creator through the Sabbath is more important, not less.
Thanks for clarifying your points, Stephen. Referring to your earlier post: I don't believe science and Scripture are incompatible; I believe that true science will always be in harmony with Scripture, and when there appears to be a conflict the problem is with a misunderstanding of science (or misinterpretation of data by scientists) rather than Scriptural error.
Regarding II Peter 3:8: I don't believe that text can be taken to mean that the days of Genesis 1 were different than the 24 hours we have today. It simply means that God is outside of time. The passage of 1000 years seems as short as a day would to us. It was a metaphor. To take it literally would be to do violence to the rest of Scripture and call into question many of the other statements that would normally be understood as a 24-hour day. The phrase "evening and morning" is used for the first 6 days. The fact that it is not used for the 7th day does not mean that the 7th day was something other than 24 hours. That's an argument from silence and brings confusion to the whole idea of a literal 7th day Sabbath.
So Horace, I take it you are saying sometimes we shouldn't read the Bible, especially numerical terms such as '1000 years' literally? And you say that sometimes these terms clearly have a metaphorical meaning?
Hmmm… That appears the same sort of argument that theistic evolutionary scholars use. How does one know at which time a literal interpretation is required and at other times a metaphorical explanation is required? Why should someone read things literally when you say and metaphorically when you say – not the reverse as other writers argue?
Moreover, God said in Gen. 2:17 said 'But do not eat from the tree of learning of good and bad. For the day you eat from it you will die for sure.' But the 24 hour day they ate the fruit they didn't die did they? Adam lived 930 years (Gen. 5:5) funny enough, still within the same 'God day' of 1000 years.
Reading Gen 1 and 2, in suggesting ‘day’ means a human day of 24 hours rather than a ‘God day’ of Epoch, seems to turn God into a liar.
The same writer, in the same book, uses the word "day" for 24 hour periods, and switches around to "the day you eat, you shall surely die" to mean nearly a thousand years? Great thinking. Who wants to explain that interesting apparent contradiction?
Yes indeed. Why would God use the word 'day' to mean 24 hours and then later to mean a 1000 years a some other epoch. The other solution is to argue God was also talking metaphorically when he told Adam and Even that they would die on the same 'day' – perhaps he mean their spiritual death? But then once you start making that argument, it opens up the possibility that other parts of Gen 1 and 2 may not be literal.
Another one is the curse to the snake, where God said the serpent will eat dust. Obviously that is an idiom because snakes eat insects and mice, not literally dust.
You seem to exclude (deliberately??) the possibility that we may have misunderstood Scripture. I believe that when both science and Scripture are properly understood that they do not contradict reality. Having had some post-high school training in both, I am not willing to accept either science or Scripture has been understood correctly over-all, or that in conflict between the two, the fault will always be on one side. Our understanding of both can be improved by listening to the other.
Kevin I do agree with you. Why does it seem that if the Bible (or rather our own interpretation of it) appears to be inconsistent with the modern consensus of science, we assume either the Bible itself must be wrong or that the modern consensus of science must be wrong?
If there is a 'literal' interpretation of Gen. 1 and 2 that could possibly fit with the modern consensus of science, why don't we attempt to explore that a little further? I am not saying I necessarily believe that a 'God day' is 1000 years or any other period of time. All I am asking is whether there is another 'literal' reading of the word 'day' ('yom') in Gen 1 and 2 that could possibly be more than a single 24 hr period? Even the ancient writers such as Augustine and Origen thought day could means epoch or a longer period.
Stephen Ferguson,
Your expression that "I believe ALL God’s Moral Law has always existed and always will exist, although it has existed in different guises" is the belief of millions of Adventists; just as millions of Mormons believe, truly believe, that Joseph Smith translated golden tablets a few years before Adventism originated.
Unfortunately, beliefs and reality often conflict, as you have failed to give a single Bible text supporting your belief that "God's Moral Law including sabbath existed prior to Sinai. There is not one instance of the term "sabbath" being used until Genesis was written, which has been assumed by many to be Moses, so unless evidence can be confirmed in Scripture that sabbath was instituted for man at creation and evidenc of anyone observing it, it remains in the boxes marked "Beliefs, Unconfirmed."
For Adventists who have been long on "proof texting" to support their doctrines, this is the most glaring and obvious one: a major doctrine that cannot be shown as existing prior to Sinai. Assumptions should never be equated with doctrines which should require much more evidence.
Elaine, the word 'rest' in Gen 2:2-3 literally means 'rest': 'On the seventh day God ended His work which He had done. And He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.'
This notion is not an Adventist proof text as you claim. Let me quote from notable non-Adventist scholar John J. Collins in Introduction to the Hebrew Bible @ p.7:
'The duplications [doublets of creation] are necessary to fit the work of creation into six days, thereby allowing the Creator to rest on the seventh, in effect inaugurating the Sabbath day. The fact that the whole process ends in a liturgical observance is typical of the Priestly source.'
Many non-Adventist scholars and writers, including those who believe in evolution, think that the seventh-day Sabbath is the purpose of the Priestly Gen. 1-2a account.
3 Then God honored the seventh day and made it holy, because in it He rested from all His work which He had done.
Sorry, that word sentence should read 'the word "rest" in Gen 2:2-3 literally means "sabbath"'. My understanding is that both words mean the same thing.
I guess the question back for Elaine is simply this – did God's Moral Law exist in creation – yes or no?
Is God's Moral Law reflected in the Ten Commandments – yes or no?
Is the seventh-day Sabbath part of the Ten Commandments – yes or no?
Thus, does the seventh-day Sabbath form part of God's Moral Law – yes or no?
The ancient and old creeds of the 'mainstream' religions including Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Presbyterans all say yes to all of these questions. If Elaine says no, then it appears she is advocating ‘Antinomianism’, considered by most ‘mainstream’ and ‘orthodox’ Christian groups as a Gnostic-influenced heresy, which is ‘a person who believes that Christians are released by grace from the obligation of observing the moral law’ (Oxford English Dictionary).
http://adventistcultmisconceptions.blogspot.com.au/2011/03/29-is-it-true-that-adventists-keep_11.html
Antinomianism’, considered by most ‘mainstream’ and ‘orthodox’ Christian groups as a Gnostic-influenced heresy, which is ‘a person who believes that Christians are released by grace from the obligation of observing the moral law’ (Oxford English Dictionary).
Stephen, to answer your questions:
No, I find no record of God giving a moral law (other than don't eat the fruit) that existed at creation. Where can it be found in the Bible?
God's moral laws are found in the Ten Commandments but that is not the only place they are found.
The Fourth Commandment is part of the Ten Commandments.
The Bible does not identify any laws as "moral." They are all laws when given by God, and the first four are only valid for a theocracy, and the U.S. is not a theocracy; otherwise, people could still be stoned in the U.S. for lighting a fire. Do you believe the Fourth should be part of law codes today? Is your neighbor who does not worship on the seventh day an immoral person? Is your neighbor who may worship another god, immoral? He would be in the Israelite theocracy, but again, we do not live in that time and place and so those laws cannot be our laws for our lives here today.
Morals and ethics are similar: they all are extrapolations of the Golden Rule. All laws, including the Ten Commandments are impotent without accompanying punishments, and they were covered in the Torah. To take the name of God in vain was blasphemy, punishable by death, as were most of the others. It is not illegal in most first world nations, but is in some Islamic nations.
The fifth through ninth are laws that are part of most nations: it is always wrong to kill, lie, steal, dishonor and not care for one's parents. But the first four are not laws in any civilized country; they can only apply in a theocracy. The tenth is in one's thoughts which is not punishable and does not pertain to any civil laws today. Israel was a theocracy and the laws were given for a specific people at a specific time and place and cannot be imported to a 21st century government today. If so, what are you suggestions fo implementing them?
Elaine, just so I understand you correctly. You are saying you would also disagree with these other ancient and modern creeds of other major non-Adventist faiths as well then:
http://adventistcultmisconceptions.blogspot.com.au/2011/03/29-is-it-true-that-adventists-keep_11.html
I look at these FB's codified by the SDA church and wonder why I am expected to check my intellect at the door. Why would God expect me to accept a story that is obviously methaphorical as literal? Why? Because the GC said so? I think it is offensive to God for anyone to abandon that intellectual skepticism that comes with education. These "laws" were man made. Every one of them. They were made based upon human concepts of what was necessary to honor God. The concept of the sabbath is not woven into the complete historical fabric of the Israelite society. Adventism using a literal creation week to justify their view of the sabbath is misguided.
You think “it is offensive to God…to abandon that intellectual skepticism that comes with education.”
What makes you think this? What makes you actually think that there is a God to be offended at all?
It is true that the FB’s are man made; but they are not “laws.” What is also man made is the “education” that has you believing it’s “obvious” that God never actually claimed to create heaven and earth as we know it in six days in the first place.
But then again, what makes you think that God exists to even be offended?
Stephen,
The laws you cite were also written by the hand of man. Education especially in the area of epistemology teaches us that "knowing" is progressive and not static. The claim that God created anything is a human claim. If I believe that claim then that is an act of faith.
Who says it isn't 'literal' and fits with OEC? My issue is people assume the only 'literal' interpretation is that day ('yom') means a 24-hour period. However, there are other 'literal' readings of the text that allow for another interpretation of a longer period of time. If one had two 'literal' readings, and one fit with science and one didn't, I can see why some would adopt the literal reading that conformed with science.
Simple point about reading it 'literally' as meaning a 24-hour period. How could Adam have named all the animal species of the world in 24 hours – it is not possible.
Stephen Ferguson,
In light of one of your more recent comments higher up and the last one just above this: I think we can remove all the questions and puzzles over what is literal, metaphorical, poetic etc if we place Genesis in its (probably) rightful place in history.
Some 140,000 years into human history a writer (Moses for arguments sake) gathered up (at least) two ancient myths depicting how humans expressed their understanding as they grappled with their own concept of self, origin and cause. They were seeing though a dark glass from an incredibly different view of the world.
Genesis is a beautifully painted, poetic picture, through a mythological lense into the deep questions so common to humanity.
God's existence is a matter of faith, and to assert literalness to "God said to the snake", "God said this or that to Adam", etc is to bring a myth so far into reality that it will become absolutely falsifiable by carefull observation and science. In doing that we will destroy its power to tell us about the human quest for God and crush something beautiful that it has to say about the relationship of man to man and creature to creature within creation/nature.
Of course to state what I have above is to deny the "truth" of what EGW said in a quote Stephen Foster posted elswhere about a literal 6000 yrs etc. And that is to destroy her authority. Oh, and yes that of the Bible – if we insist that to have any authority in the spiritual realm it must represent the voice of God and also speak literally about creation time frames and events.
Thanks cb25, I do mostly agree with you. However, I would say that the view you are suggesting does not destroy the 'truth' of the Bible or even of EGW – just certain people's interpretations of them.
I just EGW no harsher than I do Paul, who said (and if we were totally honest would say wrong) in 1 Cor. 7:29:
'I mean this, Christian brothers. The time is short. A married man should use his time as if he did not have a wife.'
Paul said the right thing for the people in the cultural and historical context of the people of his day. It was a type of 'truth' but turned out not to be factual 'truth' in the sense that time actually wasn't short. One could find a whole host of other biblical examples. Prophets primarily serve as devotional purposes for the edification of the Church, not as fortellors of the future or as scientists.
Chris,
If you would kindly identify the “quote” to which you refer that (you say) I have “posted elsewhere about a literal 6000 years etc.” I don’t mind being quoted or cited via paraphrase, but have a pet peeve about being misquoted.
I do not recall quoting Ellen White about a literal 6000 years at all.
As for the Bible and its authority, I appreciate your candor in seeking to destroy its authority relative to when/if God speaks and “creation time frames and events.”
You will encounter opposition in this endeavor; of that I can personally assure you.
Stephen Ferguson,
The inspirational warnings of urgency have always been appropriate and warranted. The time frames relative to the end being near have always been accurate. We are always living near the time of the end of our own lives. We never know when the end will come; but we always know it won’t be long. Ultimate destinies are being determined in life.
For someone looking for another literal interpretation of scripture, this should have been obvious.
Yes Stephen, not really sure what you are getting at, but we literally don't know the day nor the hour. Even non-Adventist theistic evolutionary theologians believe in the physical, literal 2nd Advent of Christ. In fact, people like notable theistic evolutionist John Haught laments that his own Church (Roman Catholic) is more concerned with a etheral spirit afterlife, rather than a physical second coming and resurrection of the dead. Yes Stephen, not really sure what you are getting at, but we literally don't know the day nor the hour. Even non-Adventist theistic evolutionary theologians believe in the physical, literal 2nd Advent of Christ. In fact, people like notable theistic evolutionist John Haught laments that his own Church (Roman Catholic) is more concerned with a etheral spirit afterlife, rather than a physical second coming and resurrection of the dead.
My whole point re all this is people (on both ‘sides’) tend to be very dogmatic about things, absolutely certain their views are the only and correct things. I would perhaps advocate take things a little more open minded and check things out, rather than make accusations that either the Bible and Ellen White is totally rubbish, or that we have to totally ignore the modern consensus of science.
Stephen Foster,
Re the quote. It was an EGW quote, for which the reference was given in a separate little post. I thoguht it was yours and that it mentioned the 6kyrs, but I may have been wrong. My apologies if so. I have had a quick look for it, but not yet found. I will keep looking and update where/who it really was:)
Stephen F,
Found it. My apologies it was Horace. Keep in mind the quote and content being from EGW was the focus, who posted it was incidental. I was drawing attention to how what I said contravened certain authority – EGW's not yours.
Here's the quote:
"Infidel geologists claim that the world is very much older than the Bible record makes it. They reject the testimony of God’s word because of those things which are to them evidences from the earth itself that it has existed tens of thousands of years. And many who profess to believe the Bible are at a loss to account for wonderful things which are found in the earth, with the view that creation week was only seven literal days, and that the world is now only about six thousand years old. These, to free themselves from difficulties thrown in their way by infidel geologists, adopt the view that the six days of creation were six vast, indefinite periods, and the day of God’s rest was another indefinite period; making senseless the fourth commandment of God’s holy law. Some eagerly receive this position; for it destroys the force of the fourth commandment, and they feel a freedom from its claims upon them. . . . Without Bible history, geology can prove nothing. Relics found in the earth do give evidence of a state of things differing in many respects from the present. But the time of their existence can be learned only from the inspired record. It may be innocent to conjecture beyond this, if our suppositions do not contradict the facts found in the sacred Scriptures. But when men leave the word of God, and seek to account for His creative works upon natural principles, they are upon a boundless ocean of uncertainty. Just how God accomplished the work of creation in six literal days, he has never revealed to mortals. His creative works are as incomprehensible as his existence."
I'll go with the Bible on this. Scientists think they have figured these things out, but since they start with the wrong suppositions, they inevitably arrive at the wrong conclusions.
Chris, which Stephen F are you referring to – I assume Stephen Foster and not me? What do you mean you'll now 'go with the Bible on this'? Are you saying you are resiling from your earlier position of viewing Gen 1 and 2 as wholly mythological and metaphorical?
All of the above after "here's the quote" is a quote right to the end.
Stephen Ferguson,
Sorry, I realized after posting that I should have put the whole name. I meant Stephen Foster. And yes, Kevin is correct: Everything after "here's the quote" is a full cut and paste of Horrace's quote. "
I continue to see Gen 1 and 2 as wholly mythological and metaphorical. It is a story. It is up to us to determine how much it matches with reality by studying precisely that: reality. (yes, some will ask what is reality)
What word did you have in mind when you suggested I may be "resiling"? I can usually figure out between the lines on spelling errors, but that one escapes me:)
resiling = resiling – to recoil or rebound from a former position. I looked it up some time ago when I came across it in an article. I have discovered that admitting ignorance is usually better than proving it, so I use the dictionary often. It doesn't always help.
Thanks Kevin,
I actually did a quick Google, but got a dud, so figured it was not a word. Learn something new every day! tks
Yes I meant the word resiling in the way Kevin described. According to Fowler's Modern Usage (the dictionary of grammar), it says 'An uncommon word meaning to withdraw from a course of action.' Sorry I am actually an Austrailan – that may explain it.
So am I, and so is Chris. Which may explain a lot 🙂
And the point is I always get a little annoyed when certain terms get co-opeted, such as the terms 'literal' or 'creation', 'evolution', 'science' and 'creationism'. Who says a particular interpretation is the 'literal' interpretation, especially if there are other non-metaphorical ways to read the text? Gen 1 and 2 may be metaphorical but if they are not, I think I have argued that there are other 'literal' ways of reading those passages where the word 'day' can be read as something other than just a 24 hour period.
I'm a little puzzled with regard to the point of quoting EGW on this topic. She believed that the earth was only 6000 years old. That was her opinion and the opinion of say 99% of the people with whom she came into direct contact. It would have been odd for her not to believe this. However, it turns out she was wrong. Simple observation. Unless you believe that she was infallible, what's the problem?
“The problem,” Erv, is at least two-fold. First off, I was misidentified as having cited Ellen White with regard to 6,000 years; and secondly White’s reference to 6,000 years is not a problem because while it is quite possible to demonstrate how it appears she may be wrong, it is totally impossible to prove her wrong.
Clearly no one knows how long the earth existed prior to The Week (no one even knows approximately how long); and The Week is, of course, her focus.
If I’m not mistaken, White made other references to 6,000 years of human history. Again, her emphasis is that The Week’s activities took place approximately that long ago.
Since the Bible is silent on how old the earth is; my focus is on the six days of The Week. This is one reason why I have no problem keeping FB #6 as is.
"White’s reference to 6,000 years is not a problem because while it is quite possible to demonstrate how it appears she may be wrong, it is totally impossible to prove her wrong."
So true, Stephen. And yet those who don't believe that creation occurred about 6000 years ago, assert that they've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. And thus, they are guilty of what the accuse us of: blind dogma.
I do not recall anyone saying beyond a shadow of a doubt. The appropriate phrase would be based on the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence.
Maybe the term "beyond a shadow of a doubt" wasn't used, but the implications to that effect are found throughout the discussions about this subject. Those of us who take the position that the earth is only about 6000 years old are passed of as morons, ignorant of the facts (simply because we take the same evidence and reach a different conclusion), while those who believe in the whole evolution/billions of years scenario are considered to be enlightened. It works both ways, Dr. Taylor.
Unfortuantely, too many on both sides are guilty of being 'ignorant of the facts', and they often have very loud voices. Perhaps another case of 'weak argument, use loud, emphatic voice'. It is the combination of arrogance and ignorance that often leads to my wanting desperately that both sides will prove to be wrong. Perhaps there is a reason why both sides keep coming up against roadblocks?
I agree. Didn't she also say masturbation causes cancer and other diseases, which is likewise obviously scientifically wrong? I don't think the problem is about how people view Ellen White per se, I think the problem is that people view Ellen White in a way not consistent with how biblical prophets are viewed. To quote Ellen White on this topic is akin to quoting Isaiah on whether the world is flat or round, or quoting Paul on whether virgins really should get married or not. If you don't apply a bit of cultural relativity to what they said, you are kind of missing the whole point.
What ever happened to that old Adventist idea of Present Truth? Shutdoor theory anyone?
I quoted EGW in a concluding point higher up to illustrate how her authority is pretty much removed if one accepts the real ages of the earth.
I said this: "Of course to state what I have above is to deny the "truth" of what EGW said in a quote …posted elswhere about a literal 6000 yrs etc. And that is to destroy her authority. Oh, and yes that of the Bible – if we insist that to have any authority in the spiritual realm it must represent the voice of God and also speak literally about creation time frames and events."
Irv. I totally agree – she was wildly wrong.
Stephen Foster, one cannot prove that to you, but seriously – just look at the evidence!
Stephen Ferguson, we need to apply a bit of cultural relativity and put many of her works in a museum.
A museum would be fitting – no tongue in cheek. When you enter a museum, you are transported back in time, seeing artifacts from that era, and viewing everything according to that cultural context. We do indeed need to do that with Ellen White, in the same all Christians (even Conservative ones) seem to agree with the Bible (if biblical archaeology and Digging Up the Past Seminars are anything to go buy).
You can learn a lot in a museum, but only when things viewed there are understood according to their right historical and cultural context.
An Ellen White Museum. What an inspired idea! We could also curate all of those interesting theological ideas she had — like the, Shut Door, and Remnant Church.
Shut Door should probably be the central exhibit. It would really put the prophetic role of edification, rather than fortune telling, front and centre.
Stephen Ferguson,
I will come out and say what I really meant: In the museum the works should be kept with the care and security of a mummy – never opened, never touched, no longer able to disturb the living with their out of date content.
Sorry.
I would say that is going too far. A museum is not meant to hide, but to educate. You have to agree that a bit of education wouldn't hurt.
But, if we included the 'charismatic' episodes as well, it would show that more than just 'edification' was going on.
lol…that wasn't quite what I meant, but I take your point:)
Cheers
Is it outrageous to suggest that when relaying information or instructions multiple times that in one instance one may relay much of what was originally said or heard and that in subsequent relaying of the same information or instructions one may relays things that were nonetheless heard or said originally, but may not have been conveyed in the initial instance of relaying the same information/instructions? Such I submit is the case with Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5.
A related question on the subject: did God actually speak the words that Moses claims He spoke in Exodus 20:1 and following—rendering this question of origins and debates about FB# 6 completely null and void— or was Moses deceiving the people?
This, of course, is a "Yes" or "No" question; not easily sidestepped by the copout of interpretation. If this indeed is open to symbolic or figurative interpretation, then all who have heretofore believed it to have literally occurred—including those then on the scene—have been deceived by Moses.
Are you suggesting because God mentions the world being created in six days in Ex. 20:8, and because God obviously is always 100% true (i.e. timeless, rather than merely relative as a prophet's words might be), then there can be no debate about the origins of the world and FB#6 in particular.
There is no doubt in my mind that God certainly said the words in Ex. 20:8 'For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth…' But how does this help this debate given God doesn't clarify what He meant 'six days' to mean. God never said, 'For in six rotations of the sun' or 'For in six 24 hour periods' that I can see.
Is there examples in the Bible where God (and Jesus as God) talk about one subject, but can mean multiple meanings simultaneously? For example, when Jesus talked about the signs of the times in Matt. 24, wasn't he talking about the forthcoming destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., but also a much wider, much bigger, and much longer apocalypse at the very end of time itself?
Stephen, if you meant something else entirely, my apologies, but could you please clarify your point.
Mr. Foster asks "did God actually speak the words that Moses claims He spoke in Exodus 20." I will be happy to answer that question if Mr. Foster would tell us how the wording of the same text in Deut was communicated to Moses." What is the reason for the Sabbath–a creation story or an Exodus story?
Yes, I am “suggesting [that] because God mentions the world being created in six days in Exodus 20:8, and because God is obviously 100% true (i.e. timeless, rather than merely relative as a prophet’s words might be [considered to be]), then there can be no debate about the origins of the world and FB#6 in particular.”
Why does God need to specify more explicitly that He meant “six rotations of the sun” when it is the earth that rotates; and the references to the evening and morning clearly identify such rotation. I know that it’s hard to conceive of God creating light before He placed the sun where it is relative to the earth (if that’s what He did); but what does that mean after all?
The point is the repeated references to the evening and the morning constituting a day, and the Genesis 2:1-3 and Exodus 20:8 reference to the same event, using the same “day” context and terminology, permit the Bible to once again interpret itself.
Dr. Taylor,
One way to look at it, of course, is that in Exodus 20:2 God prefaces the Ten Commandments by reminding the children of Israel of His emancipating them from Egyptian bondage. Thus the Exodus is thus set up as the reason to receive and obey everything that follows.
Apparently you missed my question about whether it is outrageous or unrealistic for one relaying information and instructions on multiple occasions to relay most of the information and instructions initially and to subsequently include that which may have been initially omitted in the first relaying of information. Since I believe the Bible, I believe this to have been the case in Exodus 20:8 and Deuteronomy 5.
So in answer to your question, as scripture indicates the reasons for the Sabbath commandment were both.
As you know, SDA Christians observe the Sabbath as a memorial of God’s creation.
It seems rather obvious that the context of Exodus 20 is talking about a 7-day week. God is saying to rest on the 7th day as a memorial to what he did in the previous six. Clearly, in this context (and in Genesis 1:5), God is operating, expressly, in the weekly cycle. He is, explicitly, not talking about years any other time frame — as Jesus confirmed by His own weekly Sabbath observance.
This can only be avoided by effort.
Preston,
Most everyone here is probably aware that Jesus customarily went to the synagogue. Is this the extent of Jesus' documented sabbath observation or is there more?
Preston, you rely on the phrase 'evening and morning' but this phrase is absent from the seventh day. Thousands of years ago, Christian scholars such as Augustine and Origen, long before Darwin was born, saw this to mean that God's Sabbath is an epoch of time where God finished creating and delegated authority to mankind (the period that started at the end of creation and we are still living in).
Furthermore, a memorial is not the same thing as the thing it is representing. Mankind is an image of God, but mankind is not God. Likewise, mankind's creative work and rest is not the same as God's creative work and rest.
If it weren't for the fact that so many professed Christians have a love affair with evolution, and many more are looking for an excuse to ignore the Sabbath, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's quite a stretch to treat the 7th day of creation week differently (in terms of its length) than the other 6. It goes against the normal rules of interpretation–namely that the most obvious and literal meaning is the correct one, unless there is a compelling reason to adopt a symbolic meaning (such as in the time prophecies of Daniel and Revelation. In this case there would be no reason if it weren't for the fact that so many professed Christians have more faith in fallible scientitsts than in the plain word of God.
I don't think Augustine or Origen were necessarily suggesting the creation days were literal and the Sabbath day an Epoch – I think they were perhaps suggesting each day was an Epoch. It was Origen who noted the 1st and 4th days are most likely not literal 24 hour days because the Sun wasn't created until day 4.
I also don't think Christians love evolution. To accept evolution is to accept that there has been billions of years of pain and suffering – something that wants me deeply and most theistic evolutionary Bible scholars as well. The same concept worried the priestly writers of Gen 1, who saw the natural world full of suffering, and wanted to produce an account very different from the other ancient near eastern accounts of Epic of Gilgamesh and Enu Elish, with their fickle, immoral gods.
Christians don't believe evolution because they want to – nay, life would certainly be much easier if it wasn't true. The believe it because the huge weight of scientific evidence, in a multitude of fields (geology, anthropology, physics, cosmology, biology and chemistry), suggests the world is billions of years old.
I am no scientist and sincerely hope scientists one day debunk the idea. However, I find it personally very difficult to simply ignore that over 99% of scientists do believe in evolution.
I can simply go on ignoring the evidence, as Hananiah did. All I can face the stark reality, however painful, as Jeremiah did.
The choice is ultimately for all of us to make.
Come on, Stephen, they don't believe it because of the "weight of evidence." Most of that evidence is consistent with a non-evolutionary view of life. They believe it because scientists say so, and because they don't like being ridiculed. Most scientists who believe in evolution have an a priori commitment to the theory. They ignore whatever appears to be out of harmony with the theory. The fact that 99% of scientists believe it does not make it so. The vast majority of whatever passed for scientists 500 (+ or -) years ago believed that the sun revolved around the earth, but they were wrong, of course.
I can see from your comments that you don't believe II Timothy 3:16, because you believe that the author of Genesis decided what to write, rather than being inspired by the Holy Spirit as to what to write. I don't believe the Holy Spirit dictated what to write, but He showed Moses the history of creation, and Moses wrote it in his own words. But, apparently you don't believe that Moses wrote Genesis, either.
What good is the Bible, if we assume it is merely the product of human authors, who were influenced by the cultures around them? If it is human, rather than divine in origin, then it is not the word of God, and I can pick and choose the parts I like, and ignore the rest.
Jean, I used to think the same about scientists have an agenda, but then I thought about Adventist and other Christian scientists, who are willing to lose their jobs, standing and whole lives really, for the sake of saying what they see is scientific truth. If there was nothing in the theory of evolution, why would they take such risks? Wouldn't it be much easier for them to tow the Church party line?
I reallly respect those people, Ervin Taylor, who seem to have taken the horrible path of Jeremiah, to be persecuted, ignored and called a traitor, for preaching a message no one wants to hear. I see many who oppose them in the mold of Hananiah, telling the people what they want to hear, that everything is just ok, that they don't have to alter their world views.
I do believe the Holy Bible is inspired – of course I do. But I also realise it was inspired by men and women – albeit inspired humans. The Bible is not God's divine dictation but a gallery of portraits about God through time.
You have appropriately simplified the issue it seems to me. If you don’t start with the Bible as the basis of truth—as “the 99% of scientists,” whose sheer number you include (or consider) as evidence, have not—then you “naturally” will believe whatever you think you have learned.
The question then is where does it end? I am reasonably confident that most, if not all, of these “99% of scientists” also do not believe that Lazarus was resurrected, or that Jesus gave sight to a man blind from birth, etc. because the scientific evidence would show these things are not physically possible to do.
So then, since science is the last word on reality, can we believe that Jesus was sired by the Holy Spirit, or that He rose from the dead Himself; in that these things are impossible?
Since human beings are the highest or most intelligent life form that human scientists know of and have studied; human knowledge gained through scientific methodology becomes the standard of truth and reality—for 99% anyway.
We can “interpret” our way to infidelity.
Well stated, Brother Foster. Science does not allow for miracles. So it would be easy to become an infidel if one only believe what science can prove. But, since the Bible has proven to be reliable on everything that can be tested, it is reasonable to conclude that it is also reliable when it says that Jesus rose from the dead; that He resurrected Lazarus; and that Elijah went to heaven on a chariot that appeared like fire.
It goes back to faith. I have more faith in the Bible, which has shown itself to be 100% reliable, than I do in scientists who have so often been far off the mark.
The bible 100% reliable? Miracles? Yes indeed miracles do occur if your operational definition is "amazing." Modern medicine can restore site and save lives. I have not observed God or Jesus restoring anyone from any disease that modern man faces. However, medicine can intervene and save lives. I would put my trust in medicine long before "Gods miracles." To bet on the latter in the light of a medical diagnosis is wishful thinking.
The resurrection of Lazarus and Jesus are hope stories. People hope they are true because they suggest that mortal human life is not necessarily our destiny.
One expects this kind of a response from a skeptic or an unbeliever. It proves nothing. I cannot prove that the Biblical narratives are true, but neither can you prove that they are not true. I believe the evidence is on the side of their having occurred just as recorded. That's the difference between faith and unbelief. Faith is not based on absolute proof, but rather "the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things not seen." If we rely only on what science can prove, our lives will be quite narrowly focused indeed.
Jean,
I rely on observation, common sense and science and my focus is wider than it has ever been.
Perhaps "unbelief" is very rare – reserved only for the agnostic. Every belief system is based on a certain amount of what one believes is "evidence". You yourself stated above "I believe the evidence is on the side of…" You then turn around and say "Faith is…the evidence of things not seen."
Your belief system has two components: Evidence (as you see it) and Faith (to cover the things you cannot see or demonstrate. I will tell you that it is very likely the faith component is the biggest. Evidence plays a very small part. True, you probably have heaps of carefully selected evidence, but only what fits our predetermined "faith" requirements.
I think Doctorf is spot on, and I would NOT call such positions unbelief. In fact I think it is greater belief because it is based squarely on belief in observable evidence. Something you have already admitted is important.
Your position is a faith based one – it denies much data and evidence – therefore it is possible your position is in fact the one of unbelief.
Greater is the unbelief of she who denies what can be seen to trust in things invisible. To deny what cannot be seen and believe what can is belief.
I'm unaware of any data or evidence that I am denying. I merely interpret it differently than the evolutionist does. I deny their interpretation of it, because I believe it is unwarranted. It takes more faith to believe the carefully crafted scenario painted by evolutionists than it is to take the Biblical narrative at face value. There is not one component of their cherished theory that can be proven. And don't jump in with "natural selection" or mutations. Those are demonstrable but are not evolution. Natural selection can operate only on available characteristics–it adds nothing; only rearranges what's already there. Mutations add nothing and are usually detrimental to the organism.
Jean,
You say "I believe the evidence is on the side of their having occurred just as recorded." What evidence? They are anecdotal stories. Stories are not data reflecting repeatable experientation. Also why should I not be skeptical? Why should I accept EGW visions as being from God? Why is God so exclusive when giving "revelations" ? The claims by EGW and other clairvoyants are no more credible than Jonathan Edwards claiming he talks to the dead.
That the Bible is the basis of truth is believed by many, but that is not what the Bible claims. Only Christ claims to be the Way, the Truth, and the Light.
When did the Bible become the basis of truth? The complete Bible we have today did not exist until the fourth century of Christianity and during that time, and afterward, it was never accepted as the basis of truth. That is only man's claim. Truth is not found in a book; a book leads to hundreds of different interpretations all claiming to be right; the evidence is seen here daily. All books are written by humans, and thus are fallible; only God is infallible.
"Thou shall have no other gods before me." To put one's faith in a book is to lessen the place that God should have in one's life.
Great answer Elaine. I agree – my reading of the Bible is that it never claims to be the ultimate Truth (capital) or Word (capital) of God. My reading of John chapter 1 is that Jesus Christ alone is the Truth and Word of God. The Bible is merely the truth (lower case) or word (lower case) of God. The Bible is the story or eye witness accounts (because there are at 66 different ones) about God. It is a slight but important distinction.
Rudy,
It is not clear to me why if virtually all, here, are agreed that Jesus observed the Sabbath on the 7th day by going to the synagoge and and of the Sabbath being (in Jesus' opinion) the day that God claimed in Genesis 2 and reiterated by His Word in Exodus 20 to be the sacred day set aside at the end of His 6-day creative process, why is more evidence of His belief in the 7th day Sabbath neccessary? It envokes that age-old joke, "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"
Stephen Ferguson, indeed, I rely of the phrase "evening and morning" as it is, in the biblical context of creation –and the sanctification of the 7th day Sabbath, how a day was first defined. I choose not to ignore the explicit definition provided in Genesis 1:5, again in Genesis 1:8, a third time in Genesis 1:13, a fourth time in Genesis 1:19, again, in Genesis 1:23, and a sixth time in Genesis 1:31. The fact that, it the same continuum, in the same context, in the continuation of the same narrative, the Sabbath day is not defined as the preceding six days, implies no difference between the definition of the 7th day (in terms of time definition) and that of the preceding six. I am perplexed by logic that arrives at a different place. For me, such a conclusion is unlikely to say the least, and a rather convenient (for those who doubt the biblical account) to be frank.
Preston,
After reading and re-reading your paragraphs with so many run-on sentences, it was rather difficult to follow your train of thought. My undertanding of your questions: you are unable to understand why the seventh day is not universally accepted as it so clear to you from Scripture that God rested on the seventh day and that when he was here, Jesus went to synagogue.
People are simply obstinate? They refuse to believe that the law given to the Israelites was not given to all humans for all time? Or that as a good Jew, Jesus observed all the Jewish laws. Or that, missing in the NT is a single text for Christians explaining the sacredness of the seventh day and how it should be observed?
Could it be that because there is no command given to non-Jewish Christians of the importance of revering the seventh day? Or that in spite of the Jews' insistence, the former pagans who accepted Christianity were given a very few rules: not to eat meat offered to idols, blood, nor flee from fornication. Simple. They were accepted as Christians with no other rules excpt to believe on Christ as the Messiah. All the other rules added since then were created by man to keep restricting membership and become more exclusive rather than inclusive.
Elaine,
Sorry for the lack of clarity.
I was responding to questions not about the Sabbath, but about time. The questions were about what consitituted a day in the context of creation — in Genesis and Exodus. The point was, in both places, God was speaking about a day, as we currently know it (clocks not withstanding), in the context of a 7-day week.
Preston,
I guess the tenor of this dialog creates a rather combative tendency. I was not intending to suggest that Jesus did not believe in the Sabbath. It was clearly an important part of the spiritual experience and culture that God instituted that Jesus would have honored in obedience to His father. It appears that proper sabbath observance is often defined for most people by the technocrats who lose site of purpose and experience. There is nothing in the sabbath command that requires attendance of syngogue (church for us). The sabbath command does forbid work and the Jews of Jesus day were zealous in defining in great detail all the work that should not be performed. It seems odd that the only way in which we can claim that Jesus clearly observed the sabbath is say he attended synagogue. The rest of what we know about Jesus and sabbath is his defiance of the customary interpretations of forbidden work. It is abundantly clear that Jesus did not observe the sabbath in a way that was acceptable to the sabbath authorities of his day. My question is … How did Jesus observe the sabbath (outside the synagogue attendance)? And if we have trouble answering that question what does it tell us about what God intends for followers of Jesus to do with sabbath?
Rudy,
I appreciate your concern for tone and how it may "sound" on paper. Much is lost (or easily misunderstood) in translation. I consider the respectful airing of differences to be one of the highest forms of respect. The energy belongs on the issue at hand, not the people. If I sound terse, at times, it is because I am trying to drill down to the issue. If I am offensive, it is not purposeful. If, at times, it is (or seems to be), I hope to correct it and beg pardon.
How one observes the Sabbath is not where I'm focused. I am liberal in terms of how one does this, as Sabbath was made for man and worship is focused on God by man — and not for another man to judge.
I seek, here, only to use the Sabbath as a pivot point to quantify time — the definition of "a day," in the context of creation. The fact that Jesus observed the Sabbath at all (Pharisees be damned), makes my point. Jesus came to fulfill the whole law, as defined in Exodus 20. The fact that Exodus 20:1 and Exodus 20:11 ("For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day: therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it") assigns responsibility to God and specifically references His 6-day creation, first described in Genesis 1.
My point? The earth may be (and is very likely) older that 6 thousand years per (Genesis 1:2), but God Himself, claimed a 6-day creation.
The beef, if any, regarding this claim, is with Him.
"That the sun was created the fourth day is additional challenge…"
What is the "challenge" in the sun being created on the fourth day? The sun does not determine how many hours are in a day. The rotation of the Earth on its axis is what determines how many hours are in a day. As long as you have a source of light ("God said let there be light" happened on day one), and an orb rotating on its axis, at a rate of one rotation every 24hrs, you will have 12hrs of light and 12hrs of dark on each half of said orb.
"Jesus himself, radically, and egregiously, with intent, "broke the sabbath"-and HE WAS/IS/WILLBE CREATOR!"
Jesus never broke the sabbath that He created and established. What Christ "broke" were the MAN-made rabbinical rules and restrictions that had been built up around the Sabbath. To suggest that Christ "radically, and egregiously, with intent," broke the sabbath of the 4th commandment is simply wrong on so many levels. Christ never broke the Sabbath that He asked us to keep in the 10 commandments.
Jean,
This is in reply to your post two up. No. I certainly won't be jumping in with natural selection or mutations. (they do have great value however). Those who know my too frequent postings on AT on this subject will know only too well where I stand.
THE key thing that convinces me about an evolutionary process / time frame is natural data: This world, geology, fossils, fossil fuels, salt deposits and the like.
You say you are unaware of any evidence you are denying. There are a multitude of things we could quizz each other on to check that. To risk boring everybody else let me ask you about two.
1. Did you know there is 500 cubic kilometers of salt underneath the Dead Sea – if so can you please explain it in flood geology? That will require two answers: a yes or no, and an explanation.
2. Did you know there are coral and sea fossils in the deserts of Egypt and Sinai which are on top of fossil deposits up to 7 kilometers deep? If you did know, can you please explain these in the context of flood geology? again, two anwers: yes or no, and an explanation.
Thanks
I've heard of the salt deposits under the Red Sea. I don't profess to have all the answers to these phenomena. No creationist claims to have all the answers. But the explanations offered by evolutionists must rely on un-provable assumptions about past conditions. There is no way of knowing the rate of salt deposition at the time it occurred. Evolutionists assume that it took millions of years because that's how long it would take at the present rate of salt deposition in various places. That's an unwarranted extrapolation. but they have to take that position because they have already decided not to believe in a global flood–in spite of the abundant evidence in its favor.
This is not too much different from situation with the Grand Canyon. For decades we were told that the Colorado River cut through the layers of the Grand Canyon over millions of years. Now, many evolutionists backing away from the explanation, because they know that such layering can occur in a few days or even hours, under the right kind of conditions–such as the canyons formed by the Toutle River when Mt. St. Helens erupted in 1980. The layering looks like it took eons to form, but it formed in a matter of hours or days.
I'm not familiar with the coral and marine fossils in the Egyptian desert, but it's not surprising, given the fact that there are marine fossils at very high elevations in many mountain ranges. I don't think many of us have an idea as to how violent the conditions were during the flood and its aftermath. Why is 7 kilometers a problem? The Grand Canyon was clearly formed by a flood of some kind, and it's nearly 2 kilometers deep.
Jean,
I'm not asking about the G Canyon. I'm asking about the Dead Sea and Sinai. The reason is that the Bible describes that land, it geology, geography, and topography. There has essentially been no change in that land since Noah got of his alleged boat.
What is the problem with corals and stuff 7 kms deep? It will take a vivid imagination to figure out a way to explain where the corals in the deserts came from when it has been desert since Terah. It will take even more imagination to explain how there are buried materials so deep beneath them.
The salt in the dead sea? Please, please, don't float off into accusing evolutionists of relying on unprovable assumptions about past conditions. That is a cop out.
You tell us you are not aware of any data you are denying! You have no idea how to explain the salt, or corals – but you are absolutely sure any explanation that does not have the flood in it is wrong. If that is not only one penny from denying data I don't know what is.
Got to run..
I had to pick up one of my kids from school production.
There was another point you made that really hit me. You speak of unprovable assumptions about past conditions. Yes, that old uniformity thing!
Does it not make you feel a bit hypocritical to then turn around and use Mt Saint Helens event as evidence/proof of what may have caused the Grean Canyon? Using present conditions (supposed ones at that) to explain the past. Ah, but we cannot do that with the salt, the corals, or any of the other thousands of very observable data.
If I don't stop soon I will say it too bluntly.
Explanations would be great.
Some follow up questions to those mentioned above?
1. Is the Bible the Word of God and the Truth, is it Jesus Christ? Is perhaps the Bible merely the word of God (lower case) and the truth (lower case)? Read John 1.
2. Does God only reveal Himself through the Bible or other ways? Is science (i.e. natural law) a type of revelation about God as well? Read Romans 2.
3. No doubt it is possible the read Gen. 1 and 2 as suggesting the world as being created in 6 literal, 24×6 days. However, is it possible (even if a less plausible theory) to read it other ways?
4. Are there any exegesis problems with reading Gen. 1 and 2 as meaning 6 x 24 hour periods? For example, how could Adam have named all the animals in one 24 hour period, plus all the rest?
5. If one's sole worldview is based on faith in the Bible, on what basis do you say the Bible should be followed, and not say the Koran, or the Hindu scriptures, or Australian Aborigine dreamtime stories? If the answer is evidence, say from history, archaeology, philosophy and other 'sciences', why should we reject science's place as a formative factor in mediated the possible interpretations of the Bible? If you merely say 'faith', then why not have faith in Santa Claus or the floating teepot?
"on what basis do you say the Bible should be followed, and not say the Koran, or the Hindu scriptures, or Australian Aborigine dreamtime stories?"
The Bible has one thing that the others do not–internal consistency, and fulfilled prophecy. The prophecies of Daniel, pinpointing the anointing of the Messiah down to the very year, are strong evidence that the Bible is divine rather than human in origin.
As for the length of a day in Genesis 1, let's not mix chapters 1 and 2, which is done so often. When yom is used the way it is in Genesis 1 (not Genesis 2) it always, without exception, refers to a literal, 24 hour day. The word day, both in English and Hebrew, can mean in indefinite period of time. Context must determine its usage. But in Genesis 1 there is not wiggle room. It means what it appears to mean–6, 24 hour days.
But I know that neither this explanation, nor the one above, will satisfy the skeptic. I'm nearly convinced that even if God Himself appeared before us and stated unequivocally that He created the world in 6 days, about 6000 years ago, there would be those who would find a way to twist His words and explain them away.
Jean,
Stephen Ferguson can pick up your points. I would put one bit this way: I AM convinced that even if God Himself appeared before us and stated unequivocally that He created through evolution there would be those who would find a way to twist His words and explain them away.
Jean, you say the Bible has internal consistency and fulfilled prophecy? I agree, and the 70 weeks prophecy is indeed a strong indicator in my own mind of the Bible’s divine origins. But that just proves my point – you are relying on ‘science’ or ‘philosophy’ (in the broadest sense of the word), which is outside, observable and testable evidence. You are not just relying on the Bible at all – an accusation you have largely tried to level against me.
Moreover, you then go on to talk about how the meaning of yom supposedly means different things in Gen.1 compared with Gen. 2. You say this is based on the ‘context’ but offer no real explanation as to how you come to this conclusion. To me it appears you are just picking and choosing to make things fit your own world view.
To believe Sola Scriptura or even Prima Scriptura means to believe the Bible is the infallible word of God, which alone is sufficient for salvation and all doctrine. This is the Adventist and Protestant stance.
But that doesn’t mean to view the Bible in a vacuum. Other formative factors, such as revelation, culture, experience, tradition, emotion, history, archaeology and indeed other ‘sciences’ are lesser means by which ambiguities in the text can be clarified.
As I said previously, there are clear ambiguities as to the meaning of day in Gen 1, Gen 2 and in fact in other places of the Bible, including in the NT. You seem to reluctantly accept this yourself, by trying to suggest that the word day in Gen 1 and 2 cannot mean the same things. You never did address the problem of Adam’s counting in just one day.
Augustine and Origen, almost 2000 years ago, noticed some of these ambiguities in these texts – and they had never heard of Darwin. Even they realised, solely on the basis of literary construction, that the word day in Gen 1 probably did not mean a literal 24-hour period.
Faced with this ambiguity over the word ‘yom’, we must then turn to the formative factors to guide us. Many if not most of these formative factors also suggest that the word day should not be read as a 24-hour period but something else.
As noted by others, the problem is not the Bible – the problem is people assuming the Bible says a certain thing, when it does not. That is the fundamental difference between eisegesis and exegesis.
Another question – is the Bible factually 100% true, or is only Jesus Christ ultimate Truth? Matt 8:5 unequivocally says (no wriggle room that I can see) that a centurion came to visit Jesus about a sick servant. Luke 7:3 tells the exact same story, but says the centurion didn’t personally visit but sent some Jewish elders to see Jesus instead. (NB: There are countless other examples in the Gospels of minor discrepencies if you want to quibble about the example).
Does this show:
a. The whole Bible is just a human fairy tale with no truth?
-or-
b. That the Bible is indeed inspired by the Holy Spirit, but is not always 100% factually true, should never be seen as a scientific textbook; rather, it is a human eye witness account of the Truth of Jesus Christ?
Well Chris, it’s this simple; since God is already reported by Moses to have “stated unequivocally that He created the world [that we know] in 6 days,” it would take Him coming down and saying that He created the world using evolution for many of us to believe otherwise.
Here is the flaw in your line of reasoning, in my opinion, Chris: you are arguing that discoveries disprove what is recorded in scripture as having actually occurred.
So, according to this line of reasoning, anything that scientific discovery indicates could not have occurred, did not occur. This would make every supernatural occurrence in the Bible essentially allegorical or symbolic; past and future.
This is a non-starter for Bible believers.
I do believe in Sola Scriptora, which means I do believe the Bible is sufficient for salvation. But other formative factors, including science, can provide a 'lesser light' as to amguities in scripture. The Bible might say the world was created in 6 days, but as we have argued over and over, it isn't clear how long a 'day' actually is.
This is a non-starter for SOME Bible believers." No one could include all Bible believers who agree. That's an impossibility.
"This is a non-starter for SOME Bible believers."
In that case they are not really Bible believers; they are cherry pickers.
Yes, like those who pick and choose when 'yom' is said to mean a 24-hour period and then something longer. Fact remains, it can't be explained how Adam named all the animal species in less than 24 hours, before Eve was created supposedly on the 6th literal 24-period day (Gen. 2:19-22).
Just because someone doesn't believer YOUR INTERPRETATION of the Bible doesn't mean they don't believe in the Bible.
Most believers "cherry pick" through the bible. Many ignore the implications of god sanctioned mass murder by Israel. In that regards they were not much different from any other conquering tribe with organized armies except that "god" tells them to carry out the slaughter. People often focus on parts of the bible that best serve their personal needs.
Accusing the Creator of "mass murder" is a rather serious charge. At the very end, when the wicked are executed on the charge of high treason will you still be accusing your Creator (who did not have to grant life to either you or me, by the way) of "mass murder?" He will be ridding the universe of billions of Hitlers, who would like to do to Him what the Jews did to Him 2000 years ago.
If you understood the big picture (The Great Controversy between Christ and Satan) you wouldn't make such outrageous remarks. By your comments I assume that you do not accept the Bible as the divinely inspired Word of God. Therefore we will never have a meeting of the minds on this issue.
But Jean, the way you use reason, history and archaeology (which I applaud and I agree with here) just indicates though that you do read the Bible other than just literaelly.
Yes. And when we are done 'proving' that science has it all wrong, then we need to do the same with archaeologists and historians and linguists and social scientists and even 'whatever you call people who are experts in literature'. The fact is that many good Christains working in those areas have come to the comclusion that everything they know can't be fit into just 6,000 years – or only 4,000 if we accept that the Flood wiped away all evidence of previous civilisation.
Unless we are to come up with a new paradigm (and 'simply believe the Bible' is not a viable paradigm), we will face each generation of scholars reaching the conclusion that the earth and life and civivlisation on it is older than 6,000 years. And despite what some optimists like to believe, the new dating in Egyptology won't do anything to solve that problem. It will make it more likely that Israeli and ANE archaeology will line up with the events recorded post-Pentateuch, but there will still be thousands of years of eveidence of civilisation before that to contend with.
Accusing god of mass murder is a serious charge. My point is that "gods" people make the claim that god tells them to do such things. I do not think god did any such thing. These were human actions and sanctioned by divine claim.
And yes it is true, I do not accept the bible as the "divinely inspired" word of god. There is no possible means to validate such a claim. The bible is a book reflecting the experiences of a particular people. Some of it is historical other parts appear to by mythology. The claim of divine inspiration has no authority other than that sanctioned by Christianity. The claim that the Koran is also holy has no authority other than that of Islam.
Stephen Foster,
Yes, I am "arguing that discoveries disprove what is recorded in scripture as having actually occurred." Case in point the flood based on the Sinai/Egypt and Dead Sea data. There are a myriad of other data like them. These just happen to be in Bible territory and so there is information of what the land was like. Thus, a stark reality is they don't fit the stories.
Do you really think that answers like Jean's above, simply saying "we can't explain that one" are enough? I don't.
Those things are real. Let me challenge you: Please explain them in the context of the flood. Take into account the bible descriptions of the land; anything. Just give me a rational, reasonable explanation.
Truth is no one will.
These are big picture stuff. They are forrest as oposed to leaves. We don't need to get hung up on the mutation, macro, micro, genetic, dna stuff etc. It has a massive amount to say. BUT the big picture sets the answer clearly before us. This earth and life are @**@@*(unexplainably) OLD.
I'm sorry, but if the evidence does not fit some blokes story of how he understood things when having a vision, dream or nightmare…it does not speak truth for me.
Is a Piccasso painting of a person still the 'truth' even though it may not be 100% factually true, say like a photograph? In some ways, is the exaggeration of say a satirachal cartoon 'higher truth' because it instantly communicates to the auidence what is being meant, which say a still portait would not.
I further note no one did reply to my question about whether the Bible was 100% factually true, as seen in the conflicting accounts of the Centurion in the Gospels of Matt 8:5 and Luke 7:3.
As you say Chris, when it is too hard, our critics appear to just shut their eyes and gloss over the problems.
CB,
Michael Shermer in his book "Why People Believe in Weird Things" discusses the psychology of strange beliefs. Jean uses the often used "science cannot explain…." as a validation that supernatural or strange forces are at work. Just because science cannot immediately explain a phenomena does not validate supernatural claims. I do not understand such faulty reasoning.
Doctorf,
This is seen in those who are strong believers of UFOs as piloted by aliens from outer space; or Big Foot. Because scientists have not adequately explained them to the satisfaction of a few, then they are obviously "supernatural beings." This is the default position of all such poorly informed individuals who are certain they have more information, knowledge, and understanding than the "scientists" who are obviously in on the conspiracies!
Stephen,
Let me ask you another question. Did you look up that link on the Dead Sea? Did you see the seismic images of the diapirs?
Chris,
I know that the titles to my blogs are occasionally provocatively misleading. I readily admit this is done on purpose.
Other than that however, I have consistently tried to be perfectly candid; perhaps only editing myself so as not to engage in ad hominem argumentation when so tempted. (And I may not always be successful.)
I said all that to say that I don’t care about the Dead Sea, or the seismic images of the diapirs. Frankly my eyes glaze over with such subject matter; and I realize that this is a liability/fault, and not an asset.
That said I understand your frustration that nobody has answered your questions; because I have likewise noticed that I can’t get most people to answer some of my questions, even after they say they will.
(Uncharacteristically, I once even had a scientific question: from whom or where does information in the genetic code originate; since it is, after all, actual information isn’t it?
Don’t misunderstand me. I am not asking you this question; just relating to you.)
But this also illustrates my own personal struggle. I really would like someone to disprove evolution, because it really would make my life easier. But if one takes an honest approach to the issue, which means looking not just at pro-creationist propaganda, it is increasingly difficult to keep one's eyes shut. Furthermore, the fact people who are at one moment so focal are then suddenly silent when serious questions are asked does not give my much confidence.
Why aftet 150 years has our own SDA Scientists not disproven evolution? In fact, why have many joined them – if it is all bonkers?
Stephen Foster,
It is interesting to see you admit to the TEGO factor (the eyes glaze over).
Let me make a suggestion why no one answers my question. The salt under the Dead Sea (and to a lesser degree the corals) in a "new" problem. It is only in recent years that seismic technology has come to the place it can "see" through and under salt. To date this innability has been a significant inhibitor to exploration around and under salt bodies. (for fossil fuesl etc)
To my knowledge nobody from within creationist circles has drawn attention to the Mt Sodom and Lisan diapirs.
Now here's what I suspect is the reason for the lack of answers. The Creation Defenders. eg AIG, etc etc have got nothing out there on the topic. (as far as I know anyway). So, when people are challenged to come up with an answer – there is nothing to help them.
I predict it will only be a matter of time and one of these groups will pull some rabbit out of the hat and offer explanations. If these are anything like the explanations of the chalk in the White Cliff they would be better to leave the slate clean. Less embarrassing.
Now, if I am right about why no one answers me, it points to a sad reality. People don't think for themselves. Thus, when these groups do offer an answer – guess what – it will be swallowed with the same unthinking gullibility that everything else is swallowed with.
If people cannot do some research and offer their own thinking – what assurance do they have that they have the ability to discern whether these groups are pulling the wool over their eyes? NONE. Come in sucker!
Time we started thinking for ourselves. Yes, I am glad to see you admit this is a weakness Stephen. Can I suggest that should give you cause for caution in making the kind of bold assertions you are a little prone to?
Cheers
Account detail discrepancies in various versions of the same story by differing writers are insignificant. A detail discrepancy in the account, or recounting, of the same story by the same writer is insignificant…unless you want such discrepancies to be significant; or to mean that the differing perspectives, or recollections, or the time and place or circumstances which may have affected the narrative discrepancies serve to disqualify the reliability of scripture.
This is an individual and conscious decision on your part which is your prerogative. If you conclude that after prayerfully and carefully reading the Bible the preponderance of the evidence leads you to conclude that such discrepancies are disqualifiers for authenticity, and the knowledge that you believe mankind has acquired is a better vehicle for your faith or a better standard by which to gauge truth and reality than is scripture, then you have that God-given prerogative.
As for me, when in doubt, I will choose a different path to follow; because yours, Stephen Ferguson and Chris, evidently leads to a disbelief in God and a disbelief in the historicity of Jesus.
So, Chris, while I have been accused of many things, a failure to think for myself has seldom been among them. Your Dead Sea evidence is probative to you and I’m confident that if someone interested in that topic were to answer you on your terms, it would not be persuasive as you are heavily invested. However (I was a history major), and now that you have admitted that you tend not to believe in the historicity of Jesus, you have credibility issues as far as I’m concerned; with all respect.
Stephen, the discrepencies do not lead me to view the Bible as inauthentic or lead to disbelief in God. Rather, it leads to view the Bible in its proper place, as written by very human, but 'inspired' humans, who are fallible. I see the Bible like a gallery of different portraits of God by different artists through time – some Piccaso's, some Di Vinci's, some in sculpture, some painting and some print.
My concern is people in our modern age view the Bible as a scientific textbook or a collection of photographs, which I don't think it was ever meant to be read at. My point of referencing the story of the Centurion is to point out that it is this photographic-science textbook view of the Bible which is unsustainable in the face of the evidence, which leads to disbelief in God.
If you look at the history of Christianity, this photographic-science textbook view of the Bible is relatively new, especially during the rise of Fundamentalism in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. I have already quoted numerous times the views of Origen and Augustine, who did not read the Bible this way.
It is this photograph-scientific textbook view of the Bible that leads to proof texting of scripture and methods that demand a YEC view of Gen 1 and 2 and no other.
Stephen,
You are asking the right questions. If, in over 150 years, the best of SDA scientists cannot disprove evolution, what does that tell you? Who would be more intent than SDA scientists to disprove it?
Why has the Geoscience Research Institute which receives an annual $1 million yearly allowance to date, never been able to come up with a YEC model? They made this public statement at the 2010 G.C. conference.
How much confidence can one have with this history? When one keeps looking for the abominable snowman, like snipe hunting, he must eventually admut he's been had. It just takes longer for some than others.
Thanks Elaine, it tells me that if the SDA scientists cannot disprove it, then there probably must be something to it, because as you say, if they can't no one will. My impression is YEC Christians think evolution is just some world wide conspiracy, and scientists just support evolution because of academic peer pressure. But if SDA scientists, despite peer pressure to disprove it, and despite substantial resources, as you cite, cannot disprove it, then it tells me it cannot be so easily disproven.
Elaine,
I know the people in the GRI which is right across the street. Dr. Clausen and Dr. Brand were two of my professors. I have long since moved away from them in current expertise and when you talk to them as colleauges and friends they to admit that a YEC model is "untenable." Yet there they are at the GRI. Actually Dr. Brand many yrs ago wrote a very interesting paper on salamander behavior in water and on dry land. He gave a seminar on it and he actually is a good field biologist. Despite that hard evidence supporting a YEC paradigm is difficult to come by and those at the GRI know it.
Stephen
Evolution is a slippery term. In a few sentences
could you share what type of thing you mean
by ‘evolution?’
Darrell I am not sure which Stephen you are referring to? If you are asking me, I guess I mean it in the context of what people today might call Neo-Darwinism, or the scientific consensus on Evolution.
I should just say though I am no scientists. I know Ervin has a background but not sure who else does here that is commenting? That is part of the problem for most people, including SDA theologians. If 99% of the world's scientists say the YEC model is wrong, and the world is over 6,000 years old, and even if the SDA Church's own pocket-scientists say that no YEC fits the scientific model – how I am to view all this? Just put my head in the sand?
If the word 'yom' can mean 24 hours or a much longer period, wouldn't the logical thing be to pick the interpretation that fits with the modern consensus of science? That is not disobeying the Bible, that is reading the Bible with reason.
You have just pinpointed the whole problem: using science to determine how to interpret the Bible. It should be the other way around. Science which is out of harmony with the inspired world is clearly faulty and another explanation must be sought. But those who take a low view of Scripture will never accept that, of course. The understanding of Scripture cannot always be reduced to logic. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned, and no amount of explaining will satisfy the unbelieving mind.
I'm tired of hearing that SDA scientists haven't been able to disprove evolution after 150 years. Evolutionary scientists have not been able to disprove creation, either. What does it prove? Nothing. But we have a SDA scientist who has done a stellar job of blowing holes in evolutionary theory. Why are his findings discounted? He used to be a rabid apostle of evolution when he taught it in the university. So he knows it from both sides. If anyone has credibility on this issue, he does. Or is it because he no longer believes in evolution, that his opinions are discounted?
And why are creationists not allowed to say that we don't have answers for some things? Evolutionists do it all the time. Why do they get a pass? Could it be because so many who are enamored with evolutions have an a priori commitment to it? Any explanation, no matter how logical, and well founded, will be rejected because so many have already decided that evolution is the only acceptable explanation.
Jean,
Perhaps you can explain why the entire group of scientists at the Geoscience Research Institute, paid by the General Conference, has never been able to present proof of a young earth. You mention only one scientist who has. Please identify him or her and if the evidence is overwhelmingly proof of a young earth, why hasn't the entire SDA denomination promoted it, since they are so actively promoting this belief? Shouldn't they want a scientific, rather than a theological position for evidence?
Please give proof that "creationists are not allow to say that we don't have answers for some things." Is that an accusation of dishonesty among creationists; even SDA scientists?
You have made some strong charges against those who do not accept YEC.
Are you willing to produce substance to these charges, or should we simply accept that, lacking evidence, it is simply an emotional subject that engenders response without substance.
"Please give proof that 'creationists are not allow to say that we don't have answers for some things.'"
That was in response to a previous post in which I said we don't have all the answers, and was told that it was not an acceptable response.
The SDA I was referring to above is Dr. Walter Veith. He is often passed off as a fanatic because of some of his presentations on Masons and Jesuits, among other things. But I don't see how his presentations on creation/evolution can be so easily discounted. That is the area of his expertise.
Another scientist, preferably in the same area, should be the best appraiser of another scientist's views. Few lay people are adequately informed to judge such opinions However, when someone claims to be a scientist and then wanders off in tangents about the Masons and Jesuits, he is far afield of his speciality and immediately loses credibility with the better educated.
I am not a scientist, but in obtaining a graduate degree, have learned how to determine pseudoscience from accepted and recognized discoveries. To "discover" secret information about Masons and Jesuits immediately flares the B.S. meter and anything one says beyond that has lost all credibility. Is there now a graduate degree offered in Masonry or Jesuit conspiracies?
The Jesuits have long been known for their excellence in education and I am an alumnus of a wonderful Jesuit university. It is only small minds who believe such ridiculous conspiracy theories of such organizations. They are no more to be feared than your grandmother.
Jean,
I am a biomedical scientist. Can you explain how biomedical science is out of harmony with the bible? Many diseases and understanding of how to live a more healthful life are the result of experimental science. God does not cure diseases or save lives. Physicians, paramedics and the researchers behind the scenes do cure diseases and save lives. If we relied on the bible we would still be waiting around a pool looking for the "angel" to disturb the waters so we can jump in and be healed. Do you really think such stories are literal?
Can you tell me how the discoveries from the Hubble showing an expanding universe and looking billions of years into the past are out of harmony with the bible? These discoveries make no claims with regards to the bible. The bible is not a forensic history book nor a book of how the universe came to be. The goal of science is to explain the natural universe. The bible was never written with that intention.
I never said that biomedical science is out of harmony with the Bible. Experimental science which results in curing disease and putting men on the moon is vastly different from the science that makes unverifiable claims about the distant past.
Neither did I say that the discoveries from Hubble are out of harmony with the Bible. I believe the universe is as old as it looks–and even older than the upper limit of 15 billion years that is claimed. But I don't believe that our solar system is any older than about 6000 years.
The Bible is about the great controversy between Christ and Satan. As such it covers subjects that are essential to man's understanding of that conflict and how we are affect by it and how we are to respond to it. So,other than mentioning the fact that God created the stars, it doesn't really address the rest of the universe outside our solar system. It's when science makes unwarranted, and unsubstantiated (as well as unverifiable) claims about our earth and solar system that I have a problem. Evolution and an earth that is millions of years old is one of those unverifiable claims.
Jean,
1. " I believe the universe is as old as it looks–and even older than the upper limit of 15 billion years that is claimed…"
Why do you believe that? Because it looks old? I agree. Observation is a powerful tool
2. "But I don't believe that our solar system is any older than about 6000 years."
Why do you not believe that? It certainly looks older than that! Is it because the "Bible says so"? Doesn't this mean that your prior acceptance of the Bible as the authority on that trumps your observation? Is that sensible?
3. "The Bible is about the great controversy between Christ and Satan."
Wow, who told you that? How do you verify that?
4. "It's when science makes unwarranted, and unsubstantiated (as well as unverifiable) claims about our earth and solar system that I have a problem."
Wouldn't you be more honest, or at least correct, to say "when it disagrees with the Bible, you have a problem?" You can agree on the age of the universe because it LOOKS old, and because the Bible does not clearly disagree with your observation and science. But, when it comes to this earth – where in fact observation is at its most powerfull and unequivocally points to an ancient earth and life – you are qualified and authorized to say it is nonsence?
5. "….an earth that is millions of years old is one of those unverifiable claims."
Seriously, what would it take for it to be a "verifiable claim"? You have given the Bible first call on the subject have you not? Then, reality is that nothing will be a verifiable claim for you if it disagrees with the Bible.
I ask you about the salt. You have no answer. You may not even have read the data on the link I offered you. It is just possible that even just that one piece of an armada of available data points to a process that has taken millions of years to unfold in that little piece of our planet.
Is it possible that it is only unverifiable because you refuse to admit the evidence?
That the earth IS millions of years old is quantum leaps more verifiable than that the universe is millions/billions of years old – and you yourself admit that the universe looks old and therefore probalby is old. How can you say an earth that is millions of years old is one of those unverifiable claims?
btw about Veith.
I figured you were talking about him in your first comment. It was Veith who pushed me to finally admit questions I had long tried to ignore.
When I heard him on bible translations, (having done a BA.Th., including hebrew and greek) I knew it was absolute rubbish. Then when he hit Creation stuff my background in mining and geology kicked in and it was more BS (to quote Elliane's term:). He made so many way out statements I went back to research and, unfortunately, confirmed he was in fairy land.
My subsequent research was the final straw – I could no longer deny reality.
The problem with FB6? Even in its current (loose) format it does not reflect a serious recognition of how this world and life came to be. If it is EGW keeping us from smelling the roses – throw her out. Whatever it is it has to go so we can present some form of faith and spirituality that does not require people to deny the obvious.
To whom does the earth look older than 6000 years? YE Creationists have the same evidence available as the long-agers, but they interpret that evidence differently. Who decides which conclusions are valid? Can't you at least admit that the conclusions drawn by us are just as valid as those drawn by your side? Or can you at least admit that you can't prove any of the claims made by evolutionists, any more than I can prove those made by creationists? To me the evidence is in favor of a young earth and no evolution. You see the opposite. But neither of us can prove it either way. Why is it then, that those here and at another infamous website, paint those of us who don't believe in evolution as ignorant nut jobs?
If the theory of evolution had never been postulated, I seriously question whether, with the evidence available to us today, it would now be able to gain any traction.
Do I need to verify that the Bible is about the battle between Christ and Satan. Cannot that be deduced from reading it?
But I also doubt we would be talking about creation 6,000 years ago. Believing in creation does not guarantee that anyone will accept the YEC time frame.
Jean,
If I thought for a moment the conclusions drawn by you were valid I would join you in a heartbeat – with rejoicing! I cannot.
Unfortunately, I find the claims about an evolutionary process undeniably compelling. Obviously I do not for YEC etc.
I think you will find the theory of evolution came AFTER observation. It was not as if some "nut job" proposed an idea and people went out looking for evidence. Quite the opposite.
Sadly, for both of us I believe, the bible is also opposite: It proposes an idea and we go out looking for evidence.
Re gaining traction. Every day there are discoveries that give it more traction. The YEC task is getting harder by the day as I see it.
Discussing a 6,000 year creation was not even a consideration of the Jews throughout their history and in their writing of the Bible. Nor did Christians propose this time until Bishop Ussher gave creation a specific date in October of approximately 6,000 years ago. Not until geology and earth sciences became a recognized science, was this theory of creation questioned. To prove this YEC story, circular reasoning must be used: The Bible is true because it claims inspiration–thus it is true in every word.
Creationist are no more guilty of using circular reasoning than are evolutionists who date fossils by the rocks in which they are found, and then turn around and date the rocks based on the kind of fossils contained therein. Makes a lot of sense.
Jean, I think we finally agree re what this issue is all about. Indeed, I am yes suggesting we use science to interpret the Bible. Whilst the Bible is the primary source, when something in it is ambiguous, we should use secondary moders of God's revelation (a.k.a. lesser lights or formative factors) to help guide us to which possible interpretation is most plausible. Adventists do it all the time when they use the lesser lights of history, archaeology, ancient near eastern sources, contemporary politics and revelantion (i.e. the lesser light of Ellen White) to interpret the cryptic meaning of beasts, statues, trupets, seals and marks.
What you are suggesting is that if there are a multiple possible interpretations of the Bible, and if the lesser lights suggests our preconceived notions are wrong, we should simply ignore them. That seem to be a very Roman Catholic argument to me – based on tradition.
I have nothing against science, but perhaps we could keep in mind that the social sciences also lead to a conclusion that human life on earht is more than 6,000 years old. There are many social scientists who are either agnostic on the science Vs religion issue or who are Christians who do not believe that the history they observe can be fit into less than 6,000 years. Even SDA archaeologists tend not to work with that time-frame.
Upon further reflection, I think people have wrongly mischaracterised this debate as the Bible (primary source) versus science (secondary source). If that was the case, then I could understand why people would prefer the Bible, where to quote Tertullian, 'what has Athens to do with Jerusalem'.
Rather, this debate is really about two competing and apparently contradictory lesser lights, Ellen White (secondary source) versus science (secondary source), and which should prevail in helping to interpret the ambiguities that exist in the creation account of Genesis (primary account), notably what the word day ('yom') means.
In the battle between Ellen White and the modern scientific consensus, which should prevail? Ervin seems to suggest that science should prevail, whilst Jean and others suggest Ellen White should prevail. In that way, FB#6 is about protecting Ellen White, and not really the Bible.
This debate is about believing the Bible.
“Whilst the Bible is the primary source, when something in it is ambiguous, we should use secondary moders [sic] of God's revelation (a.k.a. lesser lights or formative factors) to help guide us to which possible interpretation is most plausible.”
Forgive me Stephen Ferguson but this is an incredible statement. For example, when there is absolutely no Scriptural reason to even think that “day” in Genesis 1 and 2 and Exodus 20 is “ambiguous;” yet there those who somehow do anyway, let’s face it, everything in Scripture is then ambiguous (and please, the thousand years as day simile is unambiguously referencing the mercy/longsuffering of a timeless God toward time-confined man).
So, with this ambiguity being practically universal (for some) it follows that in “reality” God has not scripturally revealed much, and that Scripture is merely a “conversation starter.” We are to use our intellect and what we learn from other mortal men as the gauge by which we determine truth and interpret Scripture.
What is truth in the Bible thus becomes any interpretation that “is most plausible.”
Let’s follow where the “evidence” leads us: Since, based on what we know and have learned from other human beings, it is not “plausible” for people who have been dead for days to be resurrected (by voice), so this never actually happened. Since it is not plausible for the dead to have risen in the past, it is therefore not plausible for any mass resurrection to occur in the future.
This is unacceptable nonsense to Bible believers.
I guess that is where we differ – I do see ambiguity. I really wish I didn't but I do. Again, who says you are the only Bible believer – it is just claim your interpretation of it?
Stephen,
You are right. To believe in re-animation is not plausible. Belief in such things comes from the hope that faith instills. It will be "real" when it happens. If Christ existed, died and was resurrected he certainly has not returned as promised. I would love to be around in 10,000 yrs to hear the believers and theologians invent apologetics to explain why Jesus still has not returned. Maybe he is not coming back? My point here is that promises and "proof" lie with the one who makes the claim. I am not required to provide proof or arguments for gods claims. That is all on him not me.
Stephen Foster,
If there is no ambiguity in the word for "day" would you please explain the length of "day" when God told Adam that in the "day" that he ate of the fruit he would die? Only 930 years later!
Plus, it was at the END of the sixth day that God finished his creative acts and saw that it was "very good, and the evening and the morning was the sixth day." After Gd had finished creation, he rested on the seventh day but there was no closure that followed all the previous days:"The evening and morning were the seventh day. Why is evening and morning" not mentioned as were all the succeeding days?
Never included is a single command for Adam and Eve to worship on any day, and certainly not their first day following their creation. The ONLY command given was to be "fruitful and multiply" and replenish the earth. It is disengenuous for any church to claim that the seventh day has been observed since creation; or that man has observed it since Creation. Where is the Bible record confirming that?
Some very good points Elaine. Also don't forget about light existing on day one but the sun and moon on day four. Or about how Adam supposedly named all the animal kinds of the whole world (millions and billions of them) all within 24 hours on the sixth day before Eve was created.
It would be interesting to see how Stephen Foster can claim these are not at least 'ambiguities'? I would also like him to explain them away without any use whatsoever of lesser lights (formative factors).
All he has is Tradition, and it only goes back to the Fundamentalism Movement of the last 19th Cen and early 20th Cen America. The earliest Christian Tradition (as noted by Origen and Augustine) saw these problems indeed as ambiguities in the creation account.
As for me, whilst I believe Tradition has its place (i.e. as a legitimate lesser light) I don't allow it to become equal with scripture itself, which it appears Stephen Foster and the Roman Catholic Church have done. When I look at these amguities and the range of lesser lights, there appears to be something more to this creation account than a 6 x 24 hr creation.
The debate is not about believing the Bible. The debate is about how to believe the Bible, and when it is appropriate to go to a non-literal view. It isn't even really about how to interpret it. There are thousands of people who believe the Bible is inerrant and infallible who believe God created the universe through evolution. There are others who believe exactly the same things about how God inspired the Bible and what the result is who believe in creation of everything in the universe in 6 days 6,000 years ago. There are still others who believe exactly the same things about the Bible who believe the universe is very old, but either this solar system, earth, or life on earth were created in 6 days about 6, 000 years ago. Apart from defining a 'Bible believer' as someone who agrees with me, I can't see on what basis we separate those 3 groups into 'believers' and 'non-believers'. Very few, if any, Christians actually take every passage in the Bible literally, or do not use sources outside the Bible to understand it. The debate is about when and how to do so.
'Cursed are you above all livestock and all wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.' (emphasis added) (Gen. 3:14)
I take it Stephen Foster reads this literally because he only believes the plain words of the Bible? I take it he believes snakes really do eat dust, because this is what God said it would do? I take it he ignores science (i.e. objective, testable observation) that snakes don't actually eat dust but insects, mice etc.
I take it Stephen Foster doesn't see ambiguity or absurdity in the text, and use the lesser light of science to alter his view of what the Bible really means here? I take it based on science, Stephen Foster doesn't realise that the author is intending the passage to be taken as an idiom?
If Stephen Foster does indeed use science to read Gen. 3:14 as anything but literal, then I rest my case. Rather, he just picks and chooses when he allows lesser lights to modify the plain reading of the text. The only reason he doesn't view 'day' as ambiguous is because it would turn his own worldview upside, which is mainly based on Tradition – a good Roman Catholic approach. Case closed Your Honour.
and all wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust(V)
all the days of your life.
'Cursed are you above all livestock and all wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.' (emphasis added) (Gen. 3:14)
I take it Stephen Foster reads this literally because he only believes the plain words of the Bible? I take it he believes snakes really do eat dust, because this is what God said it would do? I take it he ignores science (i.e. objective, testable observation) that snakes don't actually eat dust but insects, mice etc.
I take it Stephen Foster doesn't see ambiguity or absurdity in the text, and use the lesser light of science to alter his view of what the Bible really means here? I take it based on science, Stephen Foster doesn't realise that the author is intending the passage to be taken as an idiom?
If Stephen Foster does indeed use science to read Gen. 3:14 as anything but literal, then I rest my case. Rather, he just picks and chooses when he allows lesser lights to modify the plain reading of the text. The only reason he doesn't view 'day' as ambiguous is because it would turn his own worldview upside, which is mainly based on Tradition – a good Roman Catholic approach. Case closed Your Honour.
and all wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust(V)
all the days of your life.
Let me try this yet another time: Since, based on what we know and have learned from other human beings, it is not “plausible” for people who have been dead for days to be resurrected (by voice), so this never actually happened. Since it is not plausible for the dead to have risen in the past, it is therefore not plausible for any mass resurrection to occur in the future.
Now, would anybody who thinks that science is the tool by which scriptural claims of physically impossible and/or supernatural occurrences are to be interpreted please tell me how the line of reasoning set forth in the preceding paragraph is flawed; or how one can logically come to another conclusion?
Elaine,
The “day” referred to in Genesis 2:17 is the very same day that Adam ate, or would eat, of the forbidden tree. The literal (a dirty word around here) translation is “dying thou shalt die” or (according to Young's Literal Translation) “dying thou dost die;” meaning Adam would immediately start "dying" on that very day.
I’ll bet that you knew this already.
Kevin,
If I didn’t know better, I would probably think that you guys are out to give “interpretation” a bad name.
Stephen, you raise some good points, but you are arguing your own extreme position by inferring others must naturally have the opposite extreme view – I don’t (but I can’t speak for the others). What you seem to be describing is where a formative factor (i.e. lesser light or secondary source of divine revelation) is made equal to or superior to scripture. It was that same scenario that the first Christians were concerned about, such as Clement or Tertullian, when he said, ‘What has Jerusalem to do with Athens.’
At no time did I suggest science trumps scriptures nor do I believe science has all the answers; rather, it is only useful as a lesser light if ambiguities occur. Science can at best give us a glimpse of God but it itself admits that its contribution is limited. This is how I understand sola sciptura or prima scriptura.
Stephen, do you agree or disagree that ‘science’ (in its broadest sense meaning human observation) is indeed a God-given lesser light – yes or no? (Read Romans 2)
Do you believe the iron legs in Daniel’s statue represented Rome – yes or no? On what basis did you come to that conclusion other than history and archaeology (i.e. types of science)?
Do you believe the world is round or flat, given the Bible clearly has ambiguous texts that can go either way (as seen by the RC persecution of Copernicus and Galileo)? On what basis do you believe the world is now round, other than relying on what ‘science’ has told you? Did you allow science to mediate these ambiguous texts for you?
A major problem I have with your pradigmn of thinking, is how do you know you are not really living in The Matrix, or that God did not really make the world 10 seconds ago? You can’t disprove it can you?
The truth is, you are yourself relying on lesser lights to help mediate your interpretation of scripture – just like the rest of us. The only difference is that like the Roman Catholic Church centuries ago, you are relying on the formative factor of Tradition, rather than science.
In other words, I don't think science can prove or disprove life after death – it simply doesn't know. Science can't answer a lot of things, such as where all the energy in the Universe came from before there was anything – God seems to be the only explanation in my mind. Thus, it is of little utility as a lesser light formative factor to that question. To that extent, we do indeed have to rely on faith as set out in the Bible.
In terms of origins, science does have a lot to possibly contribute to the Gen 1 and 2 debate, because i) the scriptures are ambiguous (otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion) and ii) there is observable data about the origins and age of the earth.
However, again, science can't tell us where 'heaven' is, what were the conditions by which Satan rebelled, the nature of life on other worlds etc. That is why it is important to keep science in its proper place as a lesser light, along side the other formative factors of Tradition, Reason and Ellen White (which is actually what Ervin's post was all about).
Of course, I have never said, implied, or indicated that every word in the Bible must be read, i.e. interpreted, literally; or that it contains no figurative language.
If I am not mistaken, you are a Seventh-day Adventist and no doubt have therefore heard of the concept or principle of the Bible being its own interpreter.
(If you are not an Adventist, this principle is set forth in Isaiah 28: 9, 10 and is one that we use in determining, or “interpreting,” Biblical doctrine.)
Among the reasons why “day” is accepted as literal in Genesis 1 and 2 and Exodus 20 are the consecutive repetitive references to the evening and the morning and the same references to “days” relative to the fourth commandment in Exodus 20.
Now then, as for Genesis 3:14, this same (“dust”) language is also used in other curses elsewhere in the Old Testament. By reading these, specifically Isaiah 65:25, Micah 7:17, and most particularly Psalm 72:9, we can clearly see that this Genesis 3:14 reference is merely a personification for crawling on the belly or being face down or (indeed even most appropriately) being defeated; as it is used for humans as well as the serpent. However, given that snakes use their tongues for sensing and smelling, having “adapted their tongue and sense of taste to capturing scent particles in the air and transforming it into olfactory information,” it might also be literally true.
On my question, we are not necessarily talking about life after death per se, or in the sense of post-mortem consciousness; we are talking about reanimation, or the resurrection of people who are dead. This is clearly something that is physically impossible from everything that has ever been discovered by science; i.e. ever known to man. Even if science were to somehow discover a way to actually resurrect dead people, they sure won’t do it by voice.
Now then, are we to conclude that this could never have previously happened, and will not happen anytime in the future? We must, if we use science as the interpreter of Scripture; which is nonsense.
This week a man took the Bible literally, was handling snakes, bitten and died. An example of the dangers of reading the Bible literally.
Oh, come on, Elaine. Let's not play that silly little game. You take the Bible literally when it suits you. "Love thy neighbor as thyself." "Thou shalt not kill." "Thou shalt not steal." I'm sure you don't have a problem with taking those literally.
Most of the time it is pretty easy to tell the difference between metaphor and reality in the Bible. I've tried, without success to get across to the skeptics here that the is a difference in how yom is being used in Genesis 1, and the way it is used in Genesis 2, and elsewhere, but you've all ignored it. So here it is again: When yom is used the way it is in Genesis 1 (not Genesis 2) it always, without exception, refers to a literal, 24 hour day. This is not because of my preconceived notions; it's simple Hebrew grammar. Why is this fact ignored? Because there's no way to refute it, and it takes all kinds of convoluted reasoning to get around it so the days of creation can be made to appear longer than 24 hour days.
Let's all agree that we pick and choose the Biblical texts (and EGW quotes) that support our views. Most liberals and other reasonable conservatives admit this. Many fundamentlist conservatives tend fo play games about this and are not honest with themselves and others about what they are really doing.
The day you eat you shall surely die. Death probably started immediately. We know that body cells age every day, even though it may take years for the final result. I don't have a problem with this text, we all age and die starting with our first day of life!!
We do not know how much time elapsed between Adam's creation and eating the tree, do we? Would it be correct then, to say that the day since anyone is born is the day he will die? If the meaning of death is to be that every living cell dies, as it does, then it really was not a fatal sentence at all, but merely stating the obvious. How do we know that Adam was ever immortal or that he was certain to die the day he was created? Does the Bible ever say that Adam would have lived forever? Or, is the writer merely stating the obvious facts of life as he understood them?
Indeed. The non-literal way YEC need to read the 'day' Adam will die wholly illustrates the whole point really.
No, because, again the Bible (seemingly inconveniently) interprets itself about the question of immortality.
“…the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ…” Romans 6:23
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist or a brain surgeon to deduce that since a death sentence was announced as a result of the first sin/disobedience, that there would have been no death sentence without sin; that which “…bringeth forth death.”
For those of us for whom this remains somewhat challenging, the Bible is a reliable alternate tool. Genesis 3:22-24 states that man was expelled from the Garden of Eden in order to prevent him from eating of the tree of life and thus never dying.
It’s interesting that, try as you may, you can’t use Scripture to disprove Scripture.
Actually, I meant to say “…try as we may, we can’t use Scripture to disprove Scripture;” so as not to personalize.
(Unsurprisingly, I am not clear as to whether this is intentionally poetic or not. Needless to say, the main reason for my bafflement is the Lucifer reference in relation to the “day…he should surely die.”
It is also not clear what I had to say about the day Adam began to die has to do with this; so I’ll refrain from speculation about that which itself is apparently creative speculation.)
I do think that, without any question, the matter of using scripture to determine the truth of what Scripture says is the essential matter in this discussion however. There’s a problem if the Bible cannot be used to backup its own claims.
Quite simply, we know that Jesus loves us because the Bible tells us so. Skeptics may consider this a pet interpretation.
Stephen I do agree that it is an important principle to use other scriptural passages to interpret ambiguities in the Bible. But it is not always perfect, because the cultural context of the authors might be quite different. There is an inherent danger in proof texting or quote mining, which you no doubt know is cherry picking isolated verses and then linking them with others. Even you must admit the difficulties, because you yourself rejected my attempt (which is a common argument but theistic evolutionary scholars) to link the 'day' of Adam's death, being 930 years, to the quote about God's day being like a thousand years in 2 Pet.
I know you disagree with using 2 Pet to interpret Gen here, which you have already explained, but it does illustrate the difficulties, including for you.
Also, you shouldn't discount other formative factors or lesser lights, including revelation, which Adventists use all the time when they quote Ellen White's views on scripture. Again, there is nothing wrong with that, as long as it is understood that this light is indeed 'lesser'. Science and tradition (the other two lesser lights re in the mix re this discussion) need to be seen in their rightful place as subordinate mediations of scripture also.
Hi Ervin, in all seriousness, given I assume you are more informed about the higher workings of the Church's politics (or anyone else who might know):
1. What are the chances of FB#6 being redrafted to make it explicit that it the SDA Church corporately subscribes to YEC, doing away with the current ambiguous statement of belief – or do you think it will still be watered down?
2. What are the chances of a re-drafted and more narrow YEC FB#6 getting endorsed at a General Conference session?
3. What are the practical implications if a more narrow YEC FB#6 was endorsed and became official?
I would rate #1 as highly likely for the reasons Ervin gives below. If it comes to the floor, #2 is a foregone conclusion (leaving aside issues of divine intervention). I am not sure about #3. Outside a small number of universities in NAD that teach science, I doubt anything will change. There I would still expect that, apart from one or two high-profile teachers being removed to show that 'something' is being done, teachers wil continue to teach evolution in science classes and try to avoid giving their own opinions, while arguing that creation really should be dealt with by the theology department. We wil lstill face teh problem that teh majority of SDA sceintist s do not support YEC with any enthusiasm or conviction. Much like most of our theologians' reaction to 1844 and the
Sanctuary. Many will continue to follow one of my Grandmother's favourite sayings 'if you can't say anything good about it, don't say anything'. Both civility and job tenure is enhanced by silence on many issues 🙂
As to the wider church, Elain is probably correct. During the last GC session, while it brought a great deal of comment in some sections, in most SDA churches it passed without notice or comment. I see no reason why the next should. The only discussion I am aware of that occurred in my church, which is an 'institutional' church where many people work for the church, was where some of the delegates were intending to travel on holiday before or after the GC. For most members in the pew, the GC is of no interest and has no effect in the local church.
I think Ervin's disclaimer is a good one. Few of us are blessed (cursed??) with the gift of prophecy, so all we can do is surmise given what we know or suspect. Perhaps God will intervene. Some sections of the church may conclude that squashing women's ordination – perhaps at the cost of some of our more innovative unions – is of more importance and this issue will be postponed. Should women's ordination succeed by default, I suspect that certain section sof the church will be out for blood, and FB6 would be a logical site for the massacre.
Apologies for the spelling etc in the last post. Editing was so much easier when paragraph breaks were maintained and random characters were not included with the text. Being able to modify our posts for 5 minutes or so after posting would also be appreciated.
I know that this is disturbing, but believing the meta-narrative of Jesus’ love and God answering prayer, while not believing that God raises the dead or spoke to Moses at Sinai is a non sequitur.
Yeah, I know, I know it’s all about interpretation. That is the cure all. We interpret how we please, when we please, where we please; but God is faithful and His grace is nonetheless sufficient.
But how do we that Jesus loves us, or that God hears and answers prayer, or that He will reanimate/resurrect dead people, or that He spoke to Moses?
How do we know that God is faithful and that His grace is sufficient?
Some of our atoday contributors have begun to figure this out. That if they don’t believe that God did what He is reported by Moses to have personally claimed to have done, then it doesn’t make sense to believe that Jesus actually lived (much less lives), or that He will someday resurrect the dead by the sound of His trumpet and His voice; or that He intervenes in earthly affairs.
Actually most of them had apparently figured this out long before contributing to atoday. The “problem” is that they seek influence and want the church to follow them. They are cognizant that most of their cultural and/or educational peers will never buy Biblical creationism; and they want to win them for Christ, and save Seventh-day Adventism.
Needless to say this makes no sense.
I like they way you expessed that, Brother Foster. It makes perfect sense. Apparently you and I are on a different wavelength than those you described. They sort of remind me of Deists.
Thanks Jean. I always learn something from your posts and obviously appreciate your thinking and perspective. (Are you Sister or Brother Corbeau?)
These individuals are on a road that logically leads to agnosticism, at best. This is the reason why they won’t answer whether or not Moses was conning the children of Israel at Sinai, or whether the stories concerning past resurrections were literal occurrences or not, or whether Jesus Himself was resurrected and therefore can return.
A few of them have figured it out and have actually admitted agnosticism.
Some of them are logically on the way to where the others already are; but are either oblivious or in “DeNial” River. Ironically this denial is manifested largely because they believe that we are denial and they are just trying to help us.
What’s even more ironic still is that they believe that we have been deluded by reading those portions of Scripture literally; but that they have received light and can now see—by way of science.
You may have to read this twice: Scripture deludes us, but science enlightens them. (Science enlightens some, while Scripture deludes others!?!) I don’t know what else to say.
Je suis frère Corbeau, mon ami. But don't get the wrong impression. My French is pretty rusty after 40 years of benign neglect.
I like your point in that last sentence above. No matter how one argues it, these folks always place science (so-called ) above Scripture. Scripture has never failed me; while science is notorious for its failures.
Jean and Stephen,
There is something I think both of you need to understand, and I don't think you do. Speaking for myself. I began my journey as a VERY conservative SDA. I did not go out searching for evidence against my creation view. It came to me. Little by little until it reached the point where I WAS in De Nile River! The last thing I wanted to do or would have chosen to do was abandon ship – it's a tough swim getting to dry land.
Scripture in that sense HAS failed me. That written on papyrus so long ago has in many ways proven to be a ship of reeds.
Based on my experience you will both have "little" bits of evidence which you know are against your creation views hidden away in your mind – where you think they are safe. If you are observant people, little by little you will be forced to poke more into that unholy corner of your cranium. The day of reckoning will come.
As far as "us" wanting you to follow us. I'm not sure that is the best way to look at it. I just think it is time we stopped putting senseless barriers between people and God. ie YEC etc. It is hard enough to help people to have faith that God IS, without having to defend what many believe is the indefensible creation views.
How simple it would be if we all read and interpreted Scripture exactly the same–as I do 😉
What if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it?
What and how would a revised FB6 affect individual members (the majority would probably never be aware of a change)?
In response to Stephen F, not being a prophet nor the son or grandson of a prophet, future predictions are above my pay grade.
However, based on various things our GC president has said publicly, his credibility is on the line with his right-wing constituents if he does not make FB#6 a clear statement of fundamentalist principles about creation. Thus the chance of changing the wording of FB#6 is very high unless some completely unforeseen event happens.
There are several highly placed GC officers who would like him to “cool it” on this subject, but they will not raise the issue because the vast majority of Third World Adventists and the right-wing of North American Adventism who are major parts of Ted’s constituency could create a lot of problems for these individuals.
So my guess they will stay silent unless there is a serious threat to the accreditation of our North American colleges and universities, and then they may decide it is worth it to speak up. That might be the only thing that might create a viable context for the development of widespread opposition to Ted’s agenda.
Maybe the best thing that can happen is that some of our schools lose their accreditation. Then they can downsize and get back to the educational blueprint left us by the SOP. I know that doesn't sit well with many here, but the church is not conducting a popularity contest. It is supposed to be preparing a people to be ready for the second coming of Christ. The teaching of evolution as established fact in any of our schools is certain to have the opposite effect.
May I recommend George Knight's "Myths in Adventism", particularly his chapter showing there never was a 'blueprint' for education. I do agree with the sentiment that the church is not conducting a popularity contest, inside or outside the church, which is why they should resist all attempts to return to the past by turning our universities into Bible colleges.
And for the majority, life will go on as before. Only the teachers may "lie low" in fear of reprisals of such as "Educate (Un)Truth."
Ah, the famous, mythical "SOP educational blueprint" again! I would appreciate it if someone could explain to me exactly how the SOP blueprint might be used to run a contamporary liberal arts college or university. What would be different?
I'm not convinced that it was ever intended that we should run "liberal arts" colleges or universities. That may be where we went astray. Our purpose in education isn't to please the world, but to prepare students for a productive life in the context of the great controversy between Christ and Satan. If we had run these institutions as originally intended, I believe our schools would be the envy of many. Not only would we produce good missionaries, but good plumbers, farmers, electricians, as well as doctors, teachers, and pastors. Of what value is it to a student who wants to be an auto mechanic to waste his time studying the arts, or music, or English literature? I know this sounds heretical, but I see too many students who graduate from the local university with majors in "creative writing," or philosophy, or something similar. How will they find jobs. Many of them end up doing something entirely different from what they studied in school.
I am totally naive on the subject of Adventist education, but in simply laymen's terms (i.e. two or three sentences), what is this so-called SOP blueprint of education? I would have thought education should be the exact opposite of the limited vocational approach Jean is suggesting – isn't it about critical thinking?
I recall Christ regularly recounting cryptic parables and then not giving the answer, and only relunctantly explaining the meaning to the disciples afterwards. I often considered why Jesus did this, but wonder if it was not perhaps to challenge people to think critically, rather than the rote learning of the Law the Pharesees taught.
Read the book, Education, if you want to understand how she envisioned it. It can't be explained in a few pithy sentences.
When I supervised Ph.D. disserations, I considered the abstract a very important element which demanded close attention to detail in its writing. If a graduate student could not state in a paragraph the essentials of the contributions that were being made to science as the result of from 3 to 6 years of his or her field and laboratory study, then the disseration did not get signed.
If Jean can't explain "in a few pithy sentences" the essential elements of the so-called mythic "blueprint" of EGW, then we can conclude that it is poorly formulated and not worth any consideration.
EGW has also written about the importance of SDA schools preparing students to stand in legislative halls, and she encouraged the necessary education for qualified medical students. For them to be qualified, a "Bible college" is totally inadequate.
In today's economy, there are needs for mechanics, plumbers, and electricians, but there is also the need for such trades to be able to understand computer graphics, and for auto mechanics to be able to work with the computerized systems in all autos today; not at all like 50 years ago.
These are much more highly skilled occupations than when EGW wrote. As for farmers, how many do you know who have made good living? Currently, it is only the large farmer who can hope to make it. :And the start-up costs for the necessary equipment is astronomical, again, compared to 150 years ago when EGW wrote.
"Of what value is it to a student who wants to be an auto mechanic to waste his time studying the arts, or music, or English literature?"
This is the old refrain of wasting time on such subjects as useless and only vocational studies is what one should be educated for. BOTH can be studied at college. The ability to enjoy music, the arts, music, and great literature will enhance one's entire life. Long after one quits work and retires, or is unable to work, these can make life worth living. The inability to read widely and enjoy books and music is sadly missing in the youth of today and so discouraging to teachers who often relate how children are totally unfamiliar with books, often none are in the home. Great literature aids us in understanding humanity and the commonality we have with all other peoples of the world.
To imagine education as only vocational training without these is to live in a world where there is an inability to make good judgments in all areas of life: we learn from other in many ways, and books enlarge our acquaintances that we can never gain by our own personal experiences.
To sum up: education is about living a fulfilling (in classical terms, good) life, not just making a living.
Let's see how that buzz phrase is explained and how it can revolutionize Adventist education. Such remarks raises questions about the educational level of one who suggests it.
Jean,
BTW, you haven't explained how that "blueprint" would work for a school today: who would operate it; who would support it financially even to get started, how many students could be expected, what would the costs be for building, property, faculty, administration, etc.
If you can give such a projection it will mean something. Merely using phrases of "blueprint" are totally meaningless and completely impractical. Words are cheap.
Elaine, as Ervin pointed out, Jean hasn't just failed to explain how the 'blueprint' would work for today – he has failed to explain it full stop.
Again, for the record, titles of blogs (“Help Me” and “Education is Overrated”) are different than comment postings or the blogs themselves. Blog titles such as those named above were designed to attract attention so a point can be made or communicated.
Otherwise “misleading questions with misleading intent” are not my purpose at all, my brother. To the contrary, my purpose is to be as direct and clear as possible.
We have long ago discovered that we don’t think or communicate alike. It is possible that our worldviews are also different.
We live in a big world, brother. Sometimes that happens. There are worse things.
Timo, when you mean 'church empties' do you a local church service (i.e. people leaving quickly after the sermon) or do you mean from the denomination all together?
If anyone gets a chance to read a biography of Ellen White's life, he/she cannot explain away the completely unexplainable miracles and her humble life of service and amazing writings. Ellen constantly pointed to Christ, not herself. Her life and those miraculous events of her life were openly witnessed by thousands of people, including medical doctors while she was in vision. This is in stark contrast to the claims of Joseph Smith of the Mormon church where the evidence was never found and the language claims were soon discredited. As for the messages regarding creation – it is clearly in conformity with Holy Scriptures that were inspired by God. If we discredit God's ability to create the world in 6 literal days, we again attempt to reduce God to our minuscule mind level. We know the truth – God help us accept it!
"We know the truth." I wonder if Max would please indicate who, in his view, is/are the "We" in that sentense?
And as for the "unexplainable miracles" in the life of EGW, I would suggest that the presense of purported miracles in the life of any religious figure does not valid (or invalidate) the statements of that individual. "Miracles" are associated with the lives of most religious figures in history. Unless you are to believe that the opinions of all of these individuals are to be accepted, the presense of mircles are irrelevant.
It's been a long time since my college class in logic, but I see a fallacy here. We are to believe that because many purported miracles in the lives of well known religious figures are likely bogus, then we can also discount those in the life of Ellen White.
Let's see; because it is highly unlikely that Mohamed ascended to heaven, as is claimed by Muslims, it is probably also unlikely that Enoch or Elijah did so, and one must wonder about the legitimacy of Jesus' ascension, as well.
We seem to have reached a point where those who are skeptical of Biblical truth can never be persuaded to believe unless they see it for themselves. Thomas had a similar problem and Jesus rebuked him for it.
I can't help wondering if they would still take the side of the evolutionary scientists even Jesus showed them the video of His 6-day creation. They might accuse Him of doctoring the tape.
And if he showed you a video showing it took more than 6 days, would you beleive it straight away?
That's a really big if, given the way the account is presented in Genesis, which, according to Paul,was written by a "holy man of God" under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Maybe Paul's opponents said something similar when he suggested circumcision was unnecessary. The OT is very clear on that issue. I personally believe that Moses meant us to understand 6 literal days, but if God said otherwise, it wouldn't worry me.
Aren't the NT full of statement that Jesus fulfilled certain OT prophecies, but that those fulfillments are in ways that OT authors and reader certainly would not have foreseen or intended to be understood. Some NT passages are not even OT prophecies per se at all, but that is how NT authors see them. Probably the best example that comes to mind is how John the Baptist was in fact Elijah. You can probably think of many others.
The point being, Moses no doubt did intend the word 'day' in Gen 1 to be read as a literal 24-hour day. But that is not to say that God, if we assuming he was part of the process, did not expect future generations to read it differently.
Of course for “future generations to read it differently” there would have to be a particular different meaning to the specific detailing of what happened when, and how.
There would have to be another understanding and explanation of precisely what Moses was referring to throughout the entire creation narrative.
Then, of course, we would have to do the same with Exodus 20:1, 11.
We should stop trying to reconcile the inspired Bible with Godless science and instead attempt to reconcile science with inspired revelation; but that’s not a sufficiently sophisticated approach.
"We should stop trying to reconcile the inspired Bible with Godless science and instead attempt to reconcile science with inspired revelation; but that’s not a sufficiently sophisticated approach."
You hit the nail on the head, Brother Foster. But too many of those who don't want to believe in a literal 6-day creation have already decided that modern science is more reliable than a Book which was written 2-3 thousand years ago, even though the evidence that the Book was divinely inspired is abundant. In that sense science has become their god.
I agree with Brother Foster. I would suggest that the statement that "we should stop trying to reconcile the . . . Bible with . . . Science" (inflamatory adjectives have been edited out) is an excellent idea. The Biblical narratives and contempoary science deal with completely different issues. It is something like trying the "reconcile" the rules of and how one plays baseball and football. It does not compute. Modern science is indeed more reliable about subjects which the Bible, properly understood, does not address, e.g., how old the earth and life on earth is, how all living things have evolved over billions of years, how far the sun is from the earth, etc.
Who says science is Godless? I believe it is another form of Divine Revelation, being human observation of the Creator and His creation. Funny thing is, many fundamentalist Christians use to believe that also in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, until observation showed the world was much older than 6,000 years. Then such observation suddenly became 'godless' as you say.
As I have noted before, this debate happened 2,000 years ago within the 1st Christian community over the place of philosophy (or more particular, the branch dealing with metaphysics, whilst physical philosophy is what we are now debating). Clement of Alexandria addressed the issue best, when he said:
‘philosophy is characterized by investigation into truth and the nature of things… For philosophy is the study of wisdom, and wisdom is the knowledge of things divine and human; and their causes’.
What you seem to be suggesting is irrational fideism.
Stephen Ferguson,
Science need not necessarily be Godless, and all science is not Godless.
The summary of Albert Outler’s theorization of the Scripture “leg” of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral (found in Wikipedia) resonates with me: “…that scripture is the first authority and contains the only measure whereby all other truth is tested. It was delivered by authors who were divinely inspired. It is a rule sufficient of itself. It neither needs, nor is capable of, any further addition.”
Without doubt there are quite a few scientists who consider scripture to be the “measure whereby all other truth is tested.” There are also quite a few scientists who do not believe that God exists. Science and the Godless variety are different.
You forget that Wesley used the other 'legs' to understand Scripture. The understanding on which it is based is that if we understand the words of Scripture correctly, our understanding will be supported by what we find in science (broadly defined), tradition and experience. You seem to assume that our understanding of Scripture is correct, and then proceed to measure all else by that. You are starting from a different place than Wesley and those who follow him. Wesley's intent was to understand Scripture by using all tools available, not to judge all other things by his own understanding of Scripture..
There seem to be three basic positions on Genesis 1: 1) we understand the words and therefore science is wrong when it disagrees; 2) we understand the words, and therefore the Bible is wrong when science disagrees; 3) the Bible and science seem to disagree, so we need to find a way to find the truth in both. You seem to confuse the last 2 positions, without noticing that those who hold position 3 also believe the Scripture to be true, only our understanding of it is questioned. I am in group 3 on this issue – and all other issues I can think of – and although I would like to find that creation did occur in six literal days, it is not a required outcome for me to continue to believe that God both created the world and that he inspired the Bible. For now I cannot see why Moses made a point of referencing each day if it wasn't really a day, but I am sure if there is a reason God will lead someone to find it. I am not arguing against God creating the world in six days, I am arguing against us assuming we understand Scripture fully and can be dogmatic on this subject. As Stephen Ferguson points out above, creation and human wisdom are also the creations of God and are meant to reveal him and his works. I believe God finds it no more difficult to reveal his works to scientists who do not believe in him then he does to reveal his works through theologians who are so sure of their own wisdom they see no real need for divine guidance. If you start by looking for what God has to say in every branch of knowledge, you become less inclined to believe he is not there.
Yes, totally agree with Kevin. I am more than happy to say 'scripture is the first authority and contains the only measure whereby all other truth is tested.' Echoing Kevin, my concern is when people mistake their interpretation of scripture for scripture itself.
If science says the world is more than 6,000 years old, and your interpretation of the scriptures suggest the world is only 6,000 years old, then I suggest that your interpretation is the problem.
Yes, as long as you recognise that that could be your interpretation of Scripture or of science – or both – that is wrong Assuming your interpretation of Scripture is wrong seems to me to be no more useful than assuming it is right. And sometimes the answer is other than we expect. The Hittites are a good example. With all the argument over whether they existed or not, and then the exultation of conservative Christians when they were found – a mighty empire in Anatolia – no one seemed to notice that the Bible iteself spoke of 'Hittites' as the sons of Heth, a descendant of Canaan. We did not need archaeologists to dig up Hattusas in order to believe there were 'Hittites' in Canaan. Where else would we expect the descendants of Canaan to be? Of course, for those of us interested in the history of Indo-European languages (and what sane person would not be?), the discovery of Hittite inscriptions and libraries was an amazing thing. But probably had nothing at all to do with Esau's wives or with Uriah. Or, at least, no more than the connection between Georgia, US and the 'other' Georgia.
I may have gotten carried away with Hittites and not made my main point clear. When Scripture, science, tradition and experience all line up, it is probably safe to assume you have understood Scripture. When they don't, it is safe to assume you have misunderstood something. To assume it is likely to be Scripture, because science is likely to be right, is not a good approach. Neither is assuming that tradition or experience is correct. When things don't line up, you check that you have understood all points correctly.
With very few exceptions, the words of Scripture are not up for dispute. With few exceptions, the meaning of the passage is not up for serious dispute. The interpretation is always less established. Whether you look at the Greek or Hebrew texts, very few sections are questionable in terms of what they say. The important themes are very clear. But, on a large number of texts, Hebrew and Greek scholars have a number of views on the finer points of meaning. And do not ask any group of serious Hebrew or Greek scholars to explain the underlying verbal system for either language because it will set off a very esoteric discussion that I will thoroughly enjoy, but most people won't. And whether either system is based on tense, aspect, or something else, the translation into English won't change much. The real problem is always in interpretation and application. In other words, the problem is always with our understanding, and that applies to every field and branch of human learning, including theology. So we should always be open to the possibilty we may be wrong on anything.
When Scripture, science, tradition and experience all line up, it is probably safe to assume you have understood Scripture. When they don't, it is safe to assume you have misunderstood something. To assume it is likely to be Scripture, because science is likely to be right, is not a good approach. Neither is assuming that tradition or experience is correct. When things don't line up, you check that you have understood all points correctly.
Yes good points. I think there is just as much danger in people confusing their interpretation of science for ultimate scientific truth as well. Because of course science changes all the time as well, and a well-established theory today is defunct tomorrow. I believe some people posting here have suggested that approach as well.
I agree that we need to ensure all points line up.
Perhaps this point should hereby be clarified: I carry no brief for the Wesleyan Quadrilateral per se. Frankly, I wasn’t even familiar with its provisions prior to engaging in these discussions relative to scriptural interpretation.
However I am aware that others in these forums do claim to be adherents of this system of interpretation; although I have my doubts as to how closely.
It’s tempting to get smart alecky here and ask those to whom I refer, “what part of ‘only’ don’t they understand?” If scripture “contains the ‘only’ measure by which all other truth is tested,” then all other understanding is subordinate to it.
Besides, it seems that Kevin has substituted Science for Reason in explaining his position, as if the two are presumably/automatically interchangeable.
Besides that, it seems that there are numerous different variations of understandings of this Quadrilateral, based on the various diagrams extant.
So, based on the description of the Scripture “leg” of the Quadrilateral that I cited, I am dubious that “Wesley’s intent was to understand Scripture by using all tools available,” because he had specific uses (roles) for specific tools, and seemed to delineate a hierarchy in their respective utilization (at least insofar as Scripture is concerned); and I disagree that his intention was “not to judge all other things by his own understanding of Scripture” as well.
The “other things,” properly identified and used, were to aid his understanding of Scripture; but not by means of contradicting it.
Needless to say, we can go around (again and again) on this, but I’m not here to defend the Wesleyan Quadrilateral.
I appreciate your position #3, but it assumes that we must reconcile Godless science with inspired scripture; which is not necessary. Now it may seem necessary once deference is given to Godless science; but how or why would that be deemed appropriate?
The answer: when we “believe God finds it no more difficult to reveal his works to scientists who do not believe in Him than He does to reveal His works” to scientists who do believe in Him and who seek divine guidance.
"Biblical truth?" I thought we were considering the views of EGW. And what does "evolutionary" scientists have to do with this topic? Very strange.
Not sure if I understand?
Not sure if I understand; well, that’s not true. I’m sure that I don’t understand. Then again, what else is new? It appears that we don’t understand each other. (There’s an example of “belaboring the obvious.”)
Is imperitive and imperative the same thing? If so, then again, I don’t understand. If not, then I really don’t understand.
Without distracting from Ervin’s blog, might there be any questions you could ask, in the interests of a mutual understanding?
If so, my answers are not likely to be ones with which you will agree. But perhaps we’ll better understand each other; or at least others may understand.
“Why do you not TRY to understand others viewpoints, instead of articulating your own mantra of infallible authoritative interpretation?”
My worldview is based on the idea that the Bible is completely inspired by the true and living God, and that it is given to mankind through the instruments of God-chosen holy men, and that all of its recording, or documenting, or chronicling of demonstrations of supernatural power by God in the creation of mankind, his environment, and in the affairs of men are true.
I realize that this is not exactly the consensus view of things on these boards; but that is not my problem.
In sharing perspectives and exchanging ideas I believe I understand the viewpoints of others to the extent that this is possible; but I don’t at all agree with certain views. I am admittedly unyielding because I am convinced that I am correct.
Others are convinced that they are correct; and believe that they have virtual mountains of evidence in support of their views. They are likewise unyielding simply because they too are convinced that they are correct.
You are sympathetic to one of these divergent perspectives; and it is not mine. Frankly, this too is not a/my problem.
“Last time I read about this thing called faith, it is to unite us in hope, and love. Not insulate, divide, and cling to justifications for disunity.”
Oh, really? There are a number of things written about faith—and the lack thereof. Amos 3:3 and 2 Corinthian 6:14, 15 are among them, as you well know.
Faith does unite in hope; and love is greater than both (says the Bible).
Stephen,
This exchange sounds mighty familiar. It seems you are still struggling to understand how to stop reiterating your opinions and actually defend them. I beginning to suspect you are afraid if you really listen to and comprehend the objections to your conclusions you might be persuaded. So, you never understand the objections to give cogent response or defense. In fact, some times you just start boasting that you are impervious to any thing that might be said. Which includes any evidence if there happened to be any.
Rudy,
Take this as a compliment: you and Timo have a lot in common.
Something tells me that if I had given him different responses than I had previously given you; you would likely have a problem with that—relative to consistency.
You may not have noticed, but Timo asked similar questions and raised similar objections—not about my opinions, but about my response to other peoples’ opinions. So, yeah, I do “struggle” (tongue in cheek) with how not to reiterate my opinion when asked about my reaction to others’ opinions.
Sorry guys; it is what it is. Chalk it up to a quirk of personality (or a character flaw, or whatever).
Here’s a hint: it’s not about me.
Stephen,
As I have said many times in different ways. My exchanges with you are not intended to change your beliefs per se. I am looking for an honest exchange of the ideas that evaluates the evidence. It will not bother me if you draw different conclusion from the evidence as long as it is apparent you are giving consideration to the evidence.
You still seem to be unable to draw a distinction between the evidence and your beliefs or the objections and your beliefs. I expect that you would be consistent to your beliefs unless you find some evidence to change. My criticism has always been about your lack of effort to understand other peoples point of view sufficiently to give a real defense of your beliefs. Your approach seems to founded on the proposition that you have some intrinsic ability to discern the truth that the rest of us are lacking. I think that makes it very much about you.
Stephen,
What you call your 'worlview' is a belief system, not worldview. Worldview is not built upon one's understanding of the Bible or how it works. Your understanding of the Bible is built upon a theistic worldview. You share your worldview with nearly everyone who has been a part of this discussion. You do not share your belief system with most of them. Part of the answer to how we can have different beliefs is to see how a common worldview can give rise to alternative beliefs. Like asking whether what you believe about God and reality necessarily leads to your conclusions about the Bible, and what sort of evidence would convince you to change your mind about how God works through the Bible without changing your worldview.
Kevin,
You may be right, in that I may be using “worldview” when I am actually referring to a “belief system.”
I’m not sure I understand your explanation of the difference, but since I never was really clear about the difference, I trust your judgment and thus stand corrected.
Timo,
Take the hint; it’s really not about me. But, pray for me nonetheless!
Sometimes being pedantic about words is just being pedantic. Sometimes it is an attempt to help the discussion actually go somewhere. In this case, I think words are being used with different meanings and differences are obscured, and some meanings are bieng expressed with different words so there seems to be difference where there is not. Altogether, words are exchanged, but I am not sure meaning is. But I am still not sure everyone wants to do more than exchange words.
The difference between 'worldview' and 'belief system' is important because it is part of understanding layers of meaning and importance. To reduce it all to a flat plane where terms are interchangeable is to say that all things are equally important, and therefore in practice nothing is really important. There is room in the church for more that one belief system, but not more than one worldview.
Which brings us back to the topic of this blog. Whether anyone agrees with you on the need to interpret any Biblical text literally is not as important as whether they believe that there is a God who created all things and continues to be involved in his creation. The two ideas belong to different layers of belief. To put the two together is, unfortunately, not as uncommon as it should be.