"It is because they think that their interpretation and understanding of the first book of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures is the only correct and true interpretation and understanding of that book."

 Erv, Is the issue really about the interpretation of Genesis? Numerous Bible writers in both the old and new testaments adhere to the six day creation narrative. A literal, worldwide flood is also part of the collective Scriptural consciousness, to a lesser degree. 

Is it a mistake to view the creation/flood narrative as a single issue? More importantly, if numerous writers throughout the canon of Scripture were simply rehearsing a fable, the significance of Scripture is significantly downgraded.

It is true that the gospels repeated certain fables, for instance, Abraham and Lazarus and the angel stirring the healing waters; however, It doesn't seem that the message of the entire Bible is thwarted on that account.

Not so if the creation/flood narratives are fiction.

If the creation/ flood narrative is a hoax, where do the hoaxes in Scripture start and stop?

Shane wrote:

--

if we compare the number of those who believe God created the world in six consecutive days in the recent past with those who believe in the theory of evolution, I think we would see that the Adventist faith is still very unified on this point.

--

This is a perfect example of the disceptive techniques used to persuade by ignoring reality. First the theory of evolution is nearly universally accepted even inside Adventism. The debate is about how much evolution has occurred. Is it only micro evolution or does it include macro evolution. Now if there really is such a survey as described it is so horribly framed as to be worse than useless. Worse because people with little sense will assume meaning where there is not meaning. That becomes a huge problem in Adventism because these type of people will not allow anything but their prejudiced views, facts are ignored or manipulated to suit their purposes. Truth requires more respect than that and truth can be obscure or subject to different interpretations it has to be discovered and verified as truth. Unless one can understand that they stand against everything that they don't agree with whether they have good reasons for their disagreement or not.

First, I take issue with the claim that Ellen White was ever anti-Trinitarian.  The most that can be said is that for many years she left unrebuked the Arian or semi-Arian views of some other Adventist founders, including James White.  Eventually, in the 1880 and 1890s, and in the book "Desire of Ages," she took a very strong Trinitarian position, basically an Athanasian view of the Trinity.

By contrast, she was consistently a seven literal, 24-hour days recent creationist from the beginning of her ministry to the end.  You can trace the progress (or non-progress) of her views on the topic at the GRI website, which has her statements arranged in roughly chronological order. 

It isn't true, either, that everyone in her milieu was a young-earth creationist.  Ideas of a non-literal reading of Genesis, or that the days represented eras of time, have always been common in Christianity, and were very common in EGW's time.  By the time of her death in 1915, a large swath of the American Protestant world had made peace with old-earth creationist views, and even with Darwinism.  (Ronald Numbers claims that documented young earth creationism was very rare during this period, basically until George McCready Price, taking his lead from Ellen White, began promoting it.)

In any case, that argument conflicts with the argument on the Trinity.  Certainly the overwhelming majority of the Christian world of EGW's time was Trninitarian; if EGW was simply swept along by the religious and social environment of her time and place, why did it take her so long to come out strongly in favor of the Trinity?

Moreover, the idea that EGW's view on origins was simply a reflection of her culture does not square with her claims that she was supernaturally shown some relevant things in vision:

"I was then carried back to the creation and was shown that the first week, in which God performed the work of creation in six days and rested on the seventh day, was just like every other week. The great God in his days of creation and day of rest, measured off the first cycle as a sample for successive weeks till the close of time."

 “I was shown that very large, powerful animals existed before the flood which do not now exist.”

It is certainly true that EGW presents an obstacle to liberals who would take Adventism to a liberal hermeneutic and understanding of Genesis, and a Darwinian view of origins.  But her statements cannot be explained away as mere cultural conditioning or inattention.

AnitaPacificNW

Somehow it seems incredibly arrogant to have a mindset that can determine for other people what they should believe - about anything.   I am a woman of faith - strong enough faith that I gladly give recognition to the Sovereignty of God.   I believe He created everything,  and however He did it  -  whenever He did it -  is not exactly clear,  even reading the Bible.  The introduction of sin into the Creation Story, the honoring of the Sabbath - the timing on those issues will certainly be explained by God in His timing, not ours.  

A rigid mindset I'm afraid can lead young people to later abandon faith when they realize that, as with anything ancient, there often is more than one explanation, and rather than accepting that we can't possibly understand God's ways, they bail.   I think that we have put far too small a value on faith.   The supreme belief for me is that God is God above all.   I am His child, and because of that He will make very clear to me what my way should be, because He loves me and wants me in fellowship with Him.   He has not asked me to validate His existence, or His commandments, or anything about Him - all He asks is for me to give Him my heart, believe in the Name of Jesus Christ and be saved.  

All of the time spent on antagonistic viewpoints, rigid statements, uncompromising positions, & stirring up controversies could be better spent on portraying an attitude of complete trust in God - no matter when or how He created anything and everything.   That then would free up our attitudes toward scientific study as an enlarging and ever-expanding view without limiting God to the statements written in a hugely different cultural environment so long ago.   It really devolves down to a matter of trust - can we trust the Sovereign Lord God of Everything for the ultimate answers, keeping an open and trusting faith while we share what His love has done for us?    I do not see any place in the Bible where God asks us to defend Creation.   It does not need defending.   He has asked us to honor the Sabbath as a memorial to Creation - that is pretty simple.  And it also seems unworthy of us even to question how many thousands of years ago, or how many millions of years ago, all of that might have happened.   Study the scientific evidence, always believing that there is more knowledge to be revealed.  God turned Job and his friends upside down with the concept of what He had done, and what He was capable of.  We only know what we know now, about our own years - days - weeks - months.    After all, creation was/is an act of God - creation is not  Who  God  Is.   That should be a higher priority to bend our minds around, and seek to find ways of drawing in our friends, neighbors with that - rather than thinking up scientific/pseudoscientific and/or philosophical/spiritual/religious dogma, guaranteed to set people against each other.  I do not believe that is what we are here for.     I believe in vigorous debate, thorough study, enriching our understanding to the highest level we can - but the focus of that debate, study and understanding should not be divisive.   Believe what you, God and the Holy Spirit work together on - and grant me the freedom to do the same.  There will be time enough in Heaven for God to point out what actually happened, the mechanisms, the things that we so actively would like to know now.   We were created in God's Image, and it seems to me that we ought to be acting that way.    (Now there's a concept - trying to figure out "How now then shall we live?")

Anita Hilde Lang

Shane,

I see "truth in unity." After all 92% still hold to a literal interpretation of genesis. Therefore it must be correct.  Stop the presses and throw out all of the science that suggests all life is connected through a genetic tree. 

Over complicate the matter? That already happened in the story. Light gets created twice and plants are created before the sun just to mention a few logical inconsistencies. But, its not a problem if one does not take the story literally.

Evolution of the universe is complicated. Formation of stars and the mechanisms that determine star formation and demise, are complicated. Welcome to the real world of science where things are actually explained. Biblical stories are fine as an affirmation of God as creator. But, understanding how life and the universe evolves is a bit more complex.  Once you get past literal creation, the devil is always in the details.

Doctorf :

I don't think we were discussing how truth is decided. And we weren't discussing whether either one of the thoeries is right or wrong.

I was under the impression we were discussing whether or not a majority of the Adventist church still supports biblical creation.

Shane Hilde

AnitaPacificNW

To Truthwave:   And how is it that you can interpret what I said as not trusting what God said in Genesis?  That's a huge stretch of implication and is an indication of why these conversations go so far off track.  Don't complicate what I said - that I trust however and whenever God did it.  The Genesis account differs - and that does not bother me, because I believe the intent is clear - but the words have come down through the ages filtered through the cultural environments of the time, and there are differences in word usage and in language.     Does that matter?   Only if we limit God. 

I believe God created everything.  Do I understand how and when?  No.  But that should not stop me from searching, learning, studying and from, even so,  accepting that our finite minds do not have the capability of complete understanding.   Neither should it preclude having the freedom to believe what we believe  -   without misinterpretation or judgment on the part of well-meaning but occasionally misguided individuals.  God is Sovereign, and far above the definitions of His children - otherwise He would not be worthy of our complete adoration and worship.   Don't limit Him by circumscribing His actions.

Anita Hilde Lang

Shane,

Thank you for the clarification. "Truth" in the science realm is not static. It's evolving. I suspect the same is the case in the world of theology and that makes some SDA's very uncomfortable. It certainly did in 1980 when Dr Ford was tossed out. Having read his works, I think he is correct that the SDA doctrinal position on the investigative judgement is wrong. I think the same is true with the literal interpretation of genesis. Once one figures out that the 2nd genesis story was written by the Babylonians and other contemporaries the idea of "God" writing the genesis story remains in doubt.

Anita,

To people like truthwave your position that God created everything is just not good enough. You must also accept the genesis story literally and toss out all evidence, geophysical, chemical and genetic suggesting that life, the world and universe for that matter did not come about in 6 literal days.

The "truthwavers" appear to be more like SDA inquisitors. If so I think the words "confess or you must be purified by torture or expulsion" are in order. 

AnitaPacificNW

 Actually, the point I was trying to make is that no one can know or prove one side or the other, or any points in between, in how and when Creation happened.   The scientific knowledge progresses, certainly, but I also believe that literal creation was possible, with subsequent knowledge and scientific evidence contaminated by the Devil himself.   To believe anything other than the basic tenet that God is the Creator, is to limit Him - and wouldn't that be the ultimate form of idolatry?  

Literal creation - intelligent design - evolution - or any and all forms from one extreme to the other - it still is arrogant of any living human being to believe that they can know exactly how and when God worked.  The ultimate test of faith is to believe that God could do whatever He chose to do, whenever He chose to do it, and however He chose to do it.   That is the Sovereignty of the God I worship.

Anita Hilde Lang

Ellen White uses the term 6,000 years in relationship to the age of this earth twelve times.  What is not commonly known is that she uses this term in four different ways.

The earth is 1.  Six thousand years old; 2.  About six thousand years old; 3.  Nearly six thousand years old; 4.  Over six thousand years old.

I post below all twelve statements.  So we cannot use Ellen White as the authority for the age of the earth.


A.  For 6,000 Years

The Great Controversy
PG- 659
For six thousand years, Satan's work of rebellion has "made the earth to tremble." He has "made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof." And "he opened not the house of his prisoners." For six thousand years his prison-house has received God's people, and he would have held them captive forever, but Christ has broken his bonds, and set the prisoners free. -End-

Counsels on Health
PG- 19
Man came from the hand of his Creator perfect in organization and beautiful in form. The fact that he has for six thousand years withstood the ever-increasing weight of disease and crime is conclusive proof of the power of endurance with which he was first endowed. And although the antediluvians generally gave themselves up to sin without restraint, it was more than two thousand years before the violation of natural law was sensibly felt. Had Adam originally possessed no greater physical power than men now have, the race would ere this have become extinct. -End-

Counsels on Diet and Foods
PG- 163
The controlling power of appetite will prove the ruin of thousands, when, if they had conquered on this point, they would have had moral power to gain the victory over every other temptation of Satan. But those who are slaves to appetite will fail in perfecting Christian character. The continual transgression of man for six thousand years has brought sickness, pain, and death as its fruits. And as we  near the close of time, Satan's temptation to indulge appetite will be more powerful and more difficult to overcome.

God's Amazing Grace
PG  370
The great plan of redemption results in fully bringing back the world into God's favor. All that was lost by sin is restored. Not only man but the earth is redeemed, to be the eternal abode of the obedient. For six thousand years, Satan has struggled to maintain possession of the earth. Now God's original purpose in its creation is accomplished. "The saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever" (Dan. 7:18). -End-

The Great Controversy
PG- 673
Satan's work of ruin is forever ended. For six thousand years he has wrought his will, filling the earth with woe, and causing grief throughout the universe. The whole creation has groaned and travailed together in pain. Now God's creatures are forever delivered from his presence and temptations. "The whole earth is at rest, and is quiet; they [the righteous] break forth into singing."[3 ISA. 14:7.] And a shout of praise and triumph ascends from the whole loyal universe. "The voice of a great multitude," "as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings," is heard, saying, "Alleluia; for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth." -End-

B. About 6,000 Years

The Signs of the Times
-DT- 03-20-79
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. -End-

C. Nearly 6,000 Years

The Great Controversy
PG- 552
When they have been led to believe that the dead actually return to communicate with them, Satan causes those to appear who went into the grave unprepared. They claim to be happy in heaven and even to occupy exalted positions there, and thus the error is widely taught that no difference is made between the righteous and the wicked. The pretended visitants from the world of spirits sometimes utter cautions and warnings which prove to be correct. Then, as confidence is gained, they present doctrines that directly undermine faith in the Scriptures. With an appearance of deep interest in the well-being of their friends on earth, they insinuate the most dangerous errors. The fact that they state some truths, and are able at times to foretell future events, gives to their statements an appearance of reliability; and their false teachings are accepted by the multitudes as readily, and believed as implicitly, as if they were the most sacred truths of the Bible. The law of God is set aside, the Spirit of grace despised, the blood of the covenant counted an unholy thing. The spirits deny the deity of Christ and place even the Creator on a level with themselves. Thus under a new disguise the great rebel still carries on his warfare against God, begun in heaven and for nearly six thousand years continued upon the earth. -End-

Maranatha
PG- 130
The great controversy between Christ and Satan, that has been carried forward for nearly six thousand years, is soon to close; and the wicked one redoubles his efforts to defeat the work of Christ in man's behalf and to fasten souls in his snares. To hold the people in darkness and impenitence till the Saviour's mediation is ended, and there is no longer a sacrifice for sin, is the object which he seeks to accomplish. -End-

Counsels to Parents, Teachers, and Students
PG --467
Never has the world's need for teaching and healing been greater than it is today. The world is full of those who need to be ministered unto--the weak, the helpless, the ignorant, the degraded. The continual transgression of man for nearly six thousand years has brought sickness, pain, and death as its fruit. Multitudes are perishing for lack of knowledge. -End-

The Signs of the Times
05-08-84
The great controversy between Christ and Satan, that has been carried on for almost six thousand years, is soon to close. And yet how few have their attention called to this matter, how few realize that we are living amid the closing scenes of earth's history! Satan is working diligently, binding his sheaves preparatory to gathering in his harvest. He is uniting the elements of his kingdom for the final struggle. Since his fall, he has been the great adversary of God and man, and has shown a masterly activity in trying to defeat our Saviour's efforts in our behalf. He thinks that because so many readily yield to his temptations and believe his lies, he may yet gain some advantage over Christ, who left the royal courts of Heaven that he might defeat this wily foe on his own battle-field, and open a way whereby man might escape from his cruel power. -End-


D. Over 6,000 Years

Christian Temperance and Bible Hygiene
PG- 154
The controlling power of appetite will prove the ruin of thousands, who, if they had conquered on this point, would have had the moral power to gain the victory over every other temptation. But those who are slaves to appetite will fail of perfecting Christian character. The continual transgression of man for over six thousand years has brought sickness, pain, and death as its fruit. And as we draw near the close of time, Satan's temptations to indulge appetite will be more powerful, and more difficult to resist.

The Story of Jesus
PG  183
To this earth angels have come, with the message of redemption, and its hills and valleys have echoed their songs of rejoicing. Its soil has been trodden by the feet of the Son of God. And for more than six thousand years, in its forms of beauty and gifts for sustenance, the earth has borne witness of the Creator's love. -End-

David Newman

Editor, Adventist Today

It is clear that Ellen White's statements are clustered around the 6,000 year mark.  Regarding point four.  Man's transgression of over 6,000 years still says the earth is more than 6,000 years old which "contradicts" the statement of "nearly" 6,000 years.  If you stick with 6,000 the earth is either nearly or more than.  It cannot be both.

All I was trying to say is that we cannot use Ellen White as an authority when it comes to age.  Neither can we use the bible when it comes to age since the bible does not tell us when God created the earth.  Usher is the one who gave us six thousand years and he used the Masoretic text.  If he had used the Samaritan text he would have had to have added hundreds more years to his time frame.  And the Samaritan text is as old as the Masoretic.

However, for the record I do believe life began in the vincinity of thousand of years ago not millions of years.  This is where I part company with my good friend and the publisher of Adventist Today, Erv Taylor.  We have agreed to differ in this area.  He comes at it from mainly a scientific viewpoint.  I come at it from mainly a theological viewpoint such as where did death come from.

I am not nearly as concerned with how correct a person's theology is as the attitude they bring to Scripture and the Bible.  We are not saved by correct theology but by a relationship with the Living God.  Ellen White has made it clear that just because we have taught some things as truth for many years does not necessarily make it truth.  See the Fall issue of Adventist Today.

David Newman

Editor, Adventist Today

While it is true that the Genesis account is incomplete, at least in the case of Adam,  adequate information is given. Genesis 5:3,4 say that Adam gave birth to Seth and had other sons and daughters. Of course we know about Cain and Abel, even though they are not mentioned in Adam's chronology.

The following articles on the chronlogy of Scripture place the Exodus in 1446 BC. From that point, there is a fairly consistent acount of the times reaching back to the creation of Adam.

http://home.swbell.net/rcyoung8/solomon.pdf

 1 Kings 6: 1 says that the temple was started 480 years after the Exodus. There was a captivity prior to the Exodus of more than 400 years. That takes us back to the times of Joseph and AIJ. From there we have  a direct link to the pre flood world, going back to Adam. It may not jive with science, but neither do most of the miracles of the Bible.

Why  should science should be allowed to shape our understanding of  Scripture? Science would dismiss the roll of the supernatural in mental illness, for instance. Although most Christians accept the existence of Satan, most scientifically trained psychiatrists might disagree, particularly when evil is cited as a cause of mental illness or aberrant behavior.

Chronology isn't even dealing with miracles.  This conflict is not about the interpretation of Genesis. It is not about EGW.  Chronology goes from Genesis to Kings to Ezekiel, to Galatians.

Even the best Biblical scholars  are disputing time periods that are  insignificant in the context of deep time.

Shane Wrote:

-- Are you suggesting that people who believe in microevolution, believe in the theory of evolution? If so, I have to disagree with you. It sounds as if this is turning into a word game.

--

No it is you that have turned it into a word game that is why I said your practice was deceptive. Micro evolution is part of the theory of evolution. Indeed it is the steps that lead to macro evolution. You should have realized that by the word evolution. It is kind of a big hint. Evolution includes Natural Selection another part of the theory of evolution that is widely accepted in Adventism.

Shane, I read your post and Ron's reply. I was surprised by what Ron said. I agree with you that most Adventists reject the theory of evolution. Simply put, most don't believe that our ancestors were monkeys or that we ascended from primordal slime.

Probably, most recognize that there have been less significant changes, adaptation. Microbes "evolve" in some sense when they become resistant to antibiotics, for instance. Some birds have longer beaks than others.

I noticed nothing  "deceptive" in your post.

Some of your opponents are simply that, opponents. What they say may not make sense. Some comments are irrational, illogical, prejudicial, ill-conceived, inflammatory. Your remarks will be twisted. You will be misrepresented. Some of the people who oppose you are not Christians at all. Nothing you say is going to sit right with them. So?  We battle not against flesh and blood.....

"most don't believe that our ancestors were monkeys or that we ascended from primordal slime."

That is a most simplistic assessment.  Many who do not believe the literal reading of Genesis do not at all believe that humans descended from monkeys.  That was a mis-interpretation more than 150 years ago. But by continuing to repeat such an old canard, it discredits Creationists.  Where can you quote a reputable Creationist site that states that as fact?  If so, it further discredits any "science" that they proclaim. 

No I have not demonstrated your deceptive word play to you or others who refuse to acknowledge that microevolution is part of the theory of evolution. After all I can't make you think.

A brief quote from wikipedia to help you:

--

These outcomes of evolution are sometimes divided into macroevolution, which is evolution that occurs at or above the level of species, such as extinction and speciation, and microevolution, which is smaller evolutionary changes, such as adaptations, within a species or population.^[110] In general, macroevolution is regarded as the outcome of long periods of microevolution.^[111] Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one - the difference is simply the time involved.^[112] 

--

So of course the fundamentalist dodge is we don't even believe in microevolution it is just adaption. As if using a different word for the same thing changes something. 

By the way this is what I originally said:

"

Shane wrote:

--

if we compare the number of those who believe God created the world in six consecutive days in the recent past with those who believe in the theory of evolution, I think we would see that the Adventist faith is still very unified on this point.

--

This is a perfect example of the disceptive techniques used to persuade by ignoring reality. First the theory of evolution is nearly universally accepted even inside Adventism. The debate is about how much evolution has occurred. Is it only micro evolution or does it include macro evolution..."

If course you are basing this on the GC document you gave the link to which does not even use the word evolution. 

Elaine, As I understand your position, you dismiss the Bible as a simplistic face saving document, contrived by old men around a campfire.

Whatever other opinions you may have about the Bible are of what merit? Primarily the type of communications I wish to avoid, especially in view of the fact that many of the things you say are  inaccurate, the opinions of others, or penned by atheistic/agnostic, higher critic types who have as much contempt for Scripture as do you.

If I want the opinions of people who don't believe the Bible, I prefer those who have some original ideas, primarily based on ignorance. To seriously listen to an educated  person who lost faith or never had any, comment on Scripture, is moronic.

 I will admit that your comment that the Bible should be kept away from children was one I had not seen before, however. Didn't you also suggest that reading the Bible was harmful for adults? Not sure about the originality of that one. The enemies of Christ have been trying to sell that for a long time.

Whatever "Christian evolutionists" might say, the fact remains that Scripture teaches that Jesus Christ created the world in six evening/morning periods. The creation motif permeates Scripture. God's creative and redemptive power are closely linked, if not one and the same.To reject creation is to impugn the integrity of the Bible in a way that renders it more or less meaningless.

"By faith, we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God. Things that we see were made of things we don't see." 

Anyone who rejects the Scriptural account of Creation would seem a fool to believe in the incarnation, propitiation, or resurrection of Christ. Why would they? Why should they?  People who reject those things are not Christians. Cultural Adventists? Perhaps. Christians? No.

I will repeat:  The Bible is NOT for children.  There are many parts that defy explaining to a child.  Therefore, it is for adults, and preferably those who have understanding of the different genres and something of the history of its compilation.  It is NOT a book, but an anthology of many writers with different agendas, and over hundreds of years.

 There will never be a consensus on everything written in the Bible or its interpretation.  This should be obvious with the hundreds of Christian denominations, all emphasizing different portions and interpretation.

Many concepts that Christians believe as cardinal doctrines:  such as The Fall, were never believed or taught by the Hebrew writers, but was a much later idea adopted as an explanation of the Genesis story.

There are millions of Christians who place much more emphasis on living with others in a compassionate, non-judgmental way and not based on doctrine or dogma.  Who is omniscient to decide who should be a Christian? 

Jesus was never a Christian.  There was no Christian in the world until Paul began preaching Christ, and those first Christians were neither Jews nor would they be identical to Christians today.  Christianity has evolved greatly since the first century, and it will continue to evolve if it is to be relevant today.

Fundamentalists in all religions, and in Adventism, have developed a creed (the 28 Fundamentals) that defines Adventists.  There was nothing like this when either Christianity was formed, nor when Adventism began.  This was a gradual development, and will likely be enlarged as time continues.  Are the 28 Fundamentals a guide to decide who can be "in" and who is "out"?  Compare that with the simplicity of the first Christians to see how far it has evolved.

Elaine, I hope you understand why I am going to, in your case, implement a policy of shunning. It is not because you don't sometimes have something worthwhile to say. It is because I don't believe that unbelievers and those who believe can ever agree. Perhaps others can appreciate your perspective. To me, it is poison.

I'm concerned about figuring out how to help people who have had little opportunity, to believe. People such as yourself, who have had every opportunity, I'll leave  to others to deal with.  Perhaps a more sensitive and intuitive individual can serve as your foil.

Hansen, actually the Dawkins/Hitchens/Harris crowd have been saying for awhile now that religious indoctrination of children is child abuse.  This is no more original than any of Elaine's other drivel.  Elaine is not a Christian believer, and it is kind of strange that she obsessively posts on Adventist sites (albeit extreme left-wing fringe sites like this one). 

BTW, Keafan, who posts at Spectrum, has taken this message to heart, will not allow any Christian teaching to be given to his children, and had huge fight with his wife's parents because they tried to give his children some Christian teaching on the sly.

Billman, In the OT, Hebrews who tried to lead their peers to worship other gods were killed. There was no dialog. Why would there be? All of this trouble started with dialog, Eve and the serpent.

I agree with an author who said  the danger of entertaining theories of unbelief is that one can become deceived, skeptical, even an infidel, relatively easy. The carnal mind inclines toward those things. Bad thoughts stick in the mind like foxtails in socks. 

I am revolted by pornography, in general. I avoid that which doesn't revolt me. Others are transfixed by pornography. So it is with certain forms of unbelief and skepticism. People's minds are consumed with thoughts of infidelity and unbelief until that's all they know.

Sophisticated, educated, whatever. Unbelief is still unbelief.

Jesus revealed himself to me in a remarkable way. It wasn't Buddha, Mohammed, Krishna or anyone else. It was Jesus Christ. People who try to persuade me that the Lord isn't good, or that his word is a fiction, whatever, are only revealing the paucity of their own spiritual experience.

There are many paths in life. One requires faith. Many do not. I guess I should thank God that he has blessed me with faith.

Obviously, many have heard the word and not profited. Faith is what activates God's word. How a person can hear God's word for decades and still end up an unbeliever is perhaps the greatest tragedy on earth.

I meet weekly with people who want to believe, but are struggling against a lifetime of indoctrination contrary to faith as well as a society which is incredibly hostile to Christian faith and practice.

They battle nobly on. To see people who should know better desecrate Scripture is a horror.

Ron Corson wrote:

First the theory of evolution is nearly universally accepted even inside Adventism.

No Ron it most certainly is not.  The fact of evolution existing within a given species, which has been observed and verified, is something that many Adventists do believe in  however, the theory of evolution is far more encompassing than just this one tidbit, and it includes an overall ideology that far surpasses the simple notion of change within a species.  Your statement is extremely deceptive and misleading.  

 Science is nothing more than man's perspective on the world.  Science is awsome and it's findings can be extraordinary, but in the end, every discovery made is limited to our understanding of things as we see them, not necessarily as they are.  I watched a special today on NatGeo about Noah's ark and the flood, and I was absolutely astounded at the arrogance of  the "scientists" and "experts".  They would make statements like "we know for a fact that Noah didn't have the tools necessary to build an ark of those proportions"  or "we know for a fact that Noah did not have the technology to build a boat out of wood, that would not have been plagued with constant leaking".   All of their postulating, of course is based on soooooo many assumptions that it absolutely astounds me they are allowed to spout this stuff as fact.  The only reason I believe that the Earth is roughly 6,000 years old is because GOD says it is.  Who am I to argue with Him?  I could care less what science claims to "know" cause all human knowledge is limited.  There could be plenty of scientific reasons why a planet only 6,000 years old appears to be so much older, and one day I hope to ask the universes supreme scientist about that, but God trying to make that clear to the most intelligent human mind today, would probably be like trying to explain Quantum Physics to a 4 year old.

 "The only reason I believe that the Earth is roughly 6,000 years old is because GOD says it is."   Really?  Where does God say the Earth is roughly 6,000 years old?

Apparently, you have never read one of Ellen White's most famous statements:  

"The Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God's mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity. God, as a writer, is not represented. Men will often say such an expression is not like God. But God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God's penmen, not His pen."

Let's not argue from where she obtained this statement.  It's the truthfulness of a statement not its ultimate source that is important. 

hlfnlsn

Science is mans "perspective" on the world? Its a bit more than that. A discussion on the logistics of maintaining an ark with every living "kind" certainly casts doubt on the the story being literal.

So just because someone like E White suggests that the worlds is 6,000 yrs old we should cast aside all evidence to the contrary? And where does it say "GOD" says its 6,000 yrs old? I must have missed that text. 

Explain the fact that there are other flood stories, especially the Sumerian one, that predates the Bible story by approximately a millennia.  If the Bible story is true, was it original, or a derivative of the Sumerian one?

There are many similar tales, even of origins and a garden like Eden in the Bible, that also long predate the Bible story.  Coincidence?

Doctorf ,

If you check out the links attached to my post of November 14, you will find a couple of articles written by a man who  was trained in mathematics at Oxford.

His writings on the date of the Exodus are relevant because they take us back to the time when the chronological records in Genesis end.

His article on the inductive and deductive approach to Scripture interpretation illustrates the prejudiced approach of critical scholars to Biblical chronology. Although not an Adventist, he has great respect for the work of Adventism's very own Dr. Thiele.

Here is a link to several articles he has written:

http://home.swbell.net/rcyoung8/papers.html

One of the most interesting points he makes is that the chronological  Scripture records in Kings and Chronicles have been ultimately deemed so accurate that they are being used to straighten out chronological problems related to secular history.

That is exactly what one who believes the Bible would expect. Scripture is not subject to atheistic, humanist, infidel approaches to history, nor should it be.  

--

No Ron it most certainly is not.  The fact of evolution existing within a given species, which has been observed and verified, is something that many Adventists do believe in  however, the theory of evolution is far more encompassing than just this one tidbit, and it includes an overall ideology that far surpasses the simple notion of change within a species.  Your statement is extremely deceptive and misleading. 

--

I fail to understand why people who while acknowledging the accuracy of my statement still say I am deceptive. By saying the changes (evolution) is a fact but the theory of evolution is more encompassing than the mere fact that there is change is foolish. The theory explains the fact that there is change.

Honestly the intellectual dishonesty that I see in these dicussions  amazing. Apparently there is a real lack of understanding the philosophy of Science.

I was thinking today that the way out of the trouble that La Sierra University is finding with the traditional Adventists would be better solved by requiring of all students to take a course in the Philosophy of science. That way they could deal with the ideas of origins from religion and philosophy and they could point out what the Adventist church officially claims as well as dealing with other elements such as intelligent design and theistic evolution. A philosophy of Science would be useful for all majors since it effects all our lives and even students in unrelated fields could benefit from such basic and neccessary thinking.

Ervin Taylor,

I believe the Bible is the word of God. No, not written by Him, nor written in the way He would have written it had He put pen to paper himself. I do believe however that what is written is truth. You are correct that nowhere do you find it written "the earth is xxxx number of years old".  However, it does tell us Adam was created when the world was only 6 days old, and that altogether Adam lived to be 930 yrs old, Seth lived to be 912 yrs, Enosh lived 905 yrs, .......etc. God's word tells us that this world is approximately 6,000 yrs old.   

Doctorf,

What logistics would we really have to discuss on the Ark? Would the logistics of lighting the city of Washington DC, be the same if discussed today vs 200 years ago? I'm guessing Noah took very young/small animals on the ark, and probably had one pair of dogs that could have contained the genetic coding for all breeds of dogs.  It was probably like that with all the animals. As for the construction of the boat itself and its structural integrity the possibilities are beyond our imagination. The fact of the matter is we have very little idea what the anti-deluvian's where capable of or exactly what their world was like.  It is almost like trying to say "this is how it is in heaven, because this is how we see and interpret things here".  I'm not saying science is always wrong, I'm just saying a lot of things past off by the scientific community as fact, is actually built upon some pretty major assumptions. 

Elaine Nelson,

Have you ever played the game Telephone? Reading through Genesis one might realize that there was a direct eyewitness to the flood alive for 500 years after the flood and around 200 years past the Tower of Babel incident.  Chances are pretty good that by the time people were scattered at Babel, they had all heard about the flood countless times.  Heck, they probably still saw loads of evidence of it all around them.  So, it makes complete sense that just about every culture on the face of this earth has some form of a flood legend.

Ron Corson,

Wow! you really do amaze me. Let me try to put it in a mathematical sense, and please someone correct me if I don't make this clear.  Ron your statement about adventists reads like this "the majority of adventists universally believe in the value of 8 (the THEORY of evolution)" .  I then tried to point out that while the majority of adventists do believe in the value of 2 (a form of evolution certainly contained within the THEORY of evolution, but by no means encompassing the larger scope of it) we do not believe in the value of 8.  You see there is no way to reach the value of 8 without including the value of 2, however, the value of 2 can easily be reached without ever needing to entertain the value of 8.  Ron I view your statements as deceptive because, they want to portray Adventists as universally believing in evolutionary change on a scale of 8, when we don't.  We believe it to be more around the scale of a 1 or 2.  Clear?

Then he (or she) says: "I believe the Bible is the word of God. No, not written by Him, nor written in the way He would have written it had He put pen to paper himself. I do believe however that what is written is truth . . . . God's word tells us that this world is approximately 6,000 yrs old."

Now we are getting someplace. It is not God who says the Earth is about 6,000 years old but "God's word."

So you get the about 6,000 years from mere humans counting up the numbers of the Genesis genealogies? God had nothing to do with the numbers? Right?

--

Ron I view your statements as deceptive because, they want to portray Adventists as universally believing in evolutionary change on a scale of 8, when we don't.  We believe it to be more around the scale of a 1 or 2.  Clear?

--

Oh I see, somehow I created a scale and labeled it as an 8 when it is really a 2. Well that is clear...of course I never did anything like that but I can see how your strawman is deceptive. But then most strawmen are. 

It does make me wonder how your strawman scale works though however. Say there was originally created some type of insect in Eden who of course was perfectly harmless to everything, That insect changed to become a blood sucking insect. So on your evolution scale where does that fall, or is it even an evolution scale because you claim Adventists don't believe in the theory of evolution. That I am deceptive for stating that Adventists acknowledge that animals change, teeth for ripping and tearing and nasty claws and digestive systems which work best for digesting meat. So if you don't or they don't believe in evolution than what is the theory behind such changes, God did it or the Devil did it? That there is no natural changes only changes caused by direct acts of God at every occurance. 

It seems to me to be a waste of God's time if He planned on changes whether evolving or devolving to require Him to perform a miracle for every minute change. Would seem far more logical that He institued a natural and systematic method for change, something that we could understand in some way and maybe even develop a theory to explain what we see. But I guess if you don't believe in the theory of evolution you must have something else. I would love to hear it. 

Agnostic or not, Erv's testimony is important because it indicates that those who approach the age of the earth through scientific means find plenty of evidence to contradict shallow time theories based on Scripture interpretation.

I'd like to hear from other qualified individuals as to their own convictions about what science says regarding the age of the earth. I would rather plainly tell people that the Bible contradicts scientific findings than use bad science to justify Scripture.

If the best and brightest scientists are not able to harmonize traditional Scriptural interpretations with what their observations reveal, what are they supposed to do? Erv has brought an issue into the open which has apparently been a secret for some time: Many qualified scientists from Adventist backgrounds find the Scriptural record unbelievable. 

If the best and brightest scientists are not able to harmonize traditional Scriptural interpretations with what their observations reveal, what are they supposed to do? Erv has brought an issue into the open which has apparently been a secret for some time: Many qualified scientists from Adventist backgrounds find the Scriptural record unbelievable.

Sean, There are plenty of rogue elements on faculties in Adventist institutions, cultural Adventist types, who have pleasing personalities, are well educated, articulate and worldly wise. They are still devils, advocating or holding views which are contrary to Christian faith and practice. The biology department is under fire now. Put a magnifying glass on some of the psychologists, historians, English teachers,  or "theologians," and see what you find.

There is nothing I could ever learn from science that would upset my faith in God's word. There is nothing I would want to learn. I may be considered dumb, uninformed, whatever. I know what Jesus did for me through his word. I took a few science classes in college. I was amazed at the beauty and in awe of the complexity, yet nothing even appeared to contradict faith. Perhaps had I studied on, that would have been different.

I'm not sure how much of the science which contradicts the Bible is good science. How much is bad science?  Psychiatry contradicts the Bible, often in significant areas.  The psychiatrist  who tells me my Christian faith is bunk, that there is no devil, that guilt should be "treated" rather than purged by the blood of Christ, what should I do about him?

He may not tell a patient in crisis that, but if the psych thinks that, can he truly help a patient whose problems are of a spiritual origin? Can he really accept that spiritual issues are the cause of the problem? If not, why should he be considered a member in good standing? Demon possession is as much a tenet of Scripture as Creation. Was Scripture merely describing mental illness in the language of the times?

How many Adventist psychiatrists believe in demon possession? What about the Laura Schlessinger types who tell people to "carry your guilt?" She may not be an Adventist, but an ineffective solution for personal guilt has got to be a corollary of an impotent or indifferent God. Heroin, please! 

Adventism essentially refuses to practice disfellowship. Without   church discipline, how can the administration start purging the ranks of the universities? A trained scientist who rejects Creation on the grounds of intellectual honesty and remains a member in good standing, should they be denied the right to teach in an Adventist institution?

Interesting to see what develops on the legal terrain if qualified scientists who remain church members are denied denominational employment. Interesting to see what happens if a purge does take place.   

Note: This comment has been edited by AT moderator.

Second- The 10 Commandments are taken as a literal document by almost all churches, (not as a prophetic document or a symbolic one- for example, no church teaches THOU SHALT NOT STEAL is symbolism, but rather literal).  So then why do YOU on this website (using the name "Advenist") insist on declaring the 4th Commandment is part non-literal, when God repeated the 6-day Creation story, writing it with HIS own finger?

Third- the same source from whence flows the attack on the 4th Commandment (from Sabbath to sunday) is the same source for the attack on the Creator as Creator. Why do you believe in a God who has power over life and death, but you can't accept HIS Creation story, which He repeated in the 4th Commandmet?

We must be getting close to the end, when the Church is seriously attacked like this from within- Thinking themselves wise, they became fools.

By the way, I used strike-through for references above to God, the Bible, etc, so as to make room for Darwins views as well as Dawkins and Sagans, since they must be so smart.  

Dr. Taylor:

"Tell the truth and let heavens fall."

You remind me of H.G.Wells' character Nunez in The Country of the Blind. They simply cannot see. Their scientific paradigm is flat-earth epistemology.

Most of our educated young know that the evidence for deep time and evolution is beyond doubt. If they leave us because they think we are just sincerely ignorant, or dishonestly hiding the truth, or both, it doesn't matter. They need help to reconcile their Adventist faith with reality. You do a wonderful job.

There's a lesson not to be overlooked in our present Sabbath School topic. Some people will have to be buried along with their sanctimonious blindness in the desert and let the new generation move beyond their unmarked graves.

There's a lesson not to be overlooked in our present Sabbath School topic. Some people will have to be buried along with their sanctimonious blindness in the desert and let the new generation move beyond their unmarked graves.

Hi dvddvdd:  Have you found that shouting in your sabbath school class communicates your ideas more effectively than a conversational tone?  In a long and complex post the highlighting would be nice, but in this short post it basically communicates high-pitch screaming to me.  I read Seanpit's post all the way through despite the fact that I knew it was unlikely that I would agree with him; and that without either all caps or highlighting.  And good thinking on the strike-throughs, unfortunately no one edits the post (not even Erv), so the strike-throughs really did not help anything at all.

 At the end of his blog Erv makes a plea for an end to the cultural and theological wars that do nothing to advance the Kingdom of God.  Is your response a resounding "no way-ever!!!"?  It seems to me that there was some serious purging of heratics at the end of the 19th century, it does not seem to have worked.  In fact even the Bible speaks of purges and they did not work back then either.  Notice that Jehu purged his kingdom of Baal-worshippers, but that did not turn people's hearts to God.  David, on the other hand, is never recorded as purging Isreal of idol worship and yet nonetheless had a profound impact on the religion of the nation.  This seem to have been accomplish simply by his example.  I would say that Jesus used the same strategy.  Sure, there is the whip and money changers story, but that was limited to a very particular place.  In general he was not interested in judging others.  The challenge to you is: are you willing to do likewise?

Note: This comment has been edited by AT moderator.

[paragraph deleted for irrelevance to current discussion and/or nonsensical drivel]

Heres a question----Those of YOU on here who claim to believe in God, if He can call out with HIS voice to pierce the ears of the dead , then why don't you believe His creation story? He repeated it with His fingers in the 4th Commandment.

LAZARUS-COME FORTH  or is that "scientifically" impossible too?

Actually the Ten commandments recorded as being written by God's own hand is found in Deut. 5 and it's Sabbath commandment references slavery in Egypt rather than the 6 days of creation.

Since you appear to be a stickler for facts I thought you might like to learn of your error.

--

(Deu 5:12 NIV)  "Observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy, as the LORD your God has commanded you. Deu 5:13 NIV)  Six days you shall labor and do all your work, Deu 5:14 NIV)  but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your ox, your donkey or any of your animals, nor the alien within your gates, so that your manservant and maidservant may rest, as you do. Deu 5:15 NIV)  Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day.

(Deu 5:22 NIV)  These are the commandments the LORD proclaimed in a loud voice to your whole assembly there on the mountain from out of the fire, the cloud and the deep darkness; and he added nothing more. Then he wrote them on two stone tablets and gave them to me.

Why should Ron need to remind "Bible-quoting Adventists" that there are at least two recordings of the Decalogue in the Bible?  And that they give two distinctinvely different reasons for Sabbath to be a rest day (no command whatsoever for worship, BTW). 

 Neither should it be assumed that the order of the books of the Torah in any way are chronologically positioned as seen in our present Bibles.  IOW, which record of the Ten should take precedence?  By far, the largest number of Bible scholars, Jewish, and Christian, agree that none of the books of the Bible were written until 1000 B.C., at minimum, and many, if not most,. were not written until during the Babylonian Exile.

In addition, while there were numerous people reported to be Israelites in the desert for 40 years, there was no human to observe the Creation event; PLUS, there is not a single account of any human either commanded, or observing the seventh day until Sinai.  Retrospective accounts are often written that reflect contemporary events and ideology.

Adventists have exclusively emphasized the Fourth commandment as written in Exodus as being a memorial of creation; ignoring the fact that no command for either rest or worship was ever given to man at that time, and the dual accounts found in Exodus and Deuteronomy.  An illustration of the selective use of texts to serve a particular purpose while ignoring any that might question the former assumption. 

dvddvdd wrote: "As for "shouting" or something in sabbath school, church or wherever, I never have but, thats the critiscism?"

No, that is not the real criticism.  The real criticism is that you have failed to follow even the most basic etiquette of scientific discourse.  Your introductory remarks should demonstrate that you have some idea of what is being discussed.  Then you should present relavent evidence which contradicts the hypothesis being discussed.  Then you explain how the evidence relates to the hypothesis.  All discourse is shared in a calm manner without using profanity, insults, all caps writing or really cool colors, unless the colors or writing styles improve the organization of the presentation.  There is no reason why a Christian should be consciense-stricten to communicate in such a manner and I see no point in refuting points which are not presented in this manner.

Note: This comment has been edited by AT moderator

There is no contradiction between Exodus and Deut. as it relates to the 4th Commandment. And the Sabbath stretches back to Genesis, the reason why we have a 7 day week in the first place. Comparing both texts, why do you think you acknowlegde the Sabbath ? Both because He liberated you from "Egypt" and it shows He is the creator.  Both Saviour and Creator.  (After He finished His creation-in 6 days). The whole point of the 7th day was to commemorate His work. HE is the CREATOR.  Now for you to try to contradict texts that go together well,   well, well,  it speaks volumes of the degree of-well-- u KNOW

Again-an irrifutable point-YOU can't point to the ground under someones feet and tell them the fossil record (which contains pain, suffering and death-the results of sin) was here BEFORE mankind-(since sin entered through mankind)-or you might as well spit on your Bible and throw it away.  Also, whoever quoted E.G.Wells-allow me to qoute a guy known as the apostle Paul-PROFESSING THEMSELVES WISE, THEY BECAME FOOLS. And NO, that wasn't meant to slam, but rather to hopefully get you to think and wake up. Or as Paul said, When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. (childish things like Darwin, Sagan and Dawkins).

[next two paragraphs deleted for lack of coherence and intelligibility or relevance to original topic]

Deleted by AT moderator for irrelevant drivel aided by "crayon-like" highlighting.

Note to all: Please use quotation marks or the indent button when quoting another comment. 

dvddvdd: 

No we are not going to edit the Bible but we need to keep comments on track and our online editor does a superb job in a difficult environment.

We like people to argue by facts not by emotion or ad hominum. Putting people down with whom we disagree does not help one's cause. 

I am actually a Young Earth Creationist.  And I believe this way because of theological reasons first.   The differences on both sides occur because of the presuppositions with which we come to the discussion.  If you accept the presupposition of uniformitarianism then those who propose millions of years for life on earth make perfect sense.   If you accept the presupposition of catastrophism and that the entrance of sin changed some of the fundamental laws by which our earth operates then you come up with a different interpretation of the facts.

Both sides have the same facts.  The issue is one of interpretation and the assumptions by which you come to the discussion.  And what makes this debate particularly difficult is that you cannot prove or disprove assumptions.

For example.  I come to the origins debate assuming there is a God. Richard Dawkins comes to the debate assuming there is no God.  I cannot prove there is a God.  He cannot prove there is no God.  So we are at a stalemate.

I have come to the conclusion that interesting as blogs are they may be a waste of time.  We have many blogs on AT website.  Has anyone changed their mind because of interacting with a blog or reading a blog?  I would be interested to know.  I am not saying we should discontinue blogs.  I believe they have their place.  They can help build community.  They can disseminate good information.

The most important part of the discussion is the spirit with which we come to the discussion.  Just because someone may disagree with me does not justify invective or judgment about their spiritual condition.  I try and approach every discussion with love, patience, and understanding.  Not that I always achieve it.  Those of us who quote the Bible a lot need to really meditate on these words of Jesus. "By this will everyone know that you are my disciples by how you LOVE one another"  (John 13:35).

David Newman

Editor, Adventist Today

"How often the supposed deductions of science are revised or cast aside; with what readiness the assumed period of the earth's development is from time to time increased or diminished by millions of years; and how the theories advanced by different scientists conflict with one another, --considering all this, shall we, for the privilege of tracing our descent from germs and mollusks and apes, consent to cast away that statement of Holy Writ, so grand in its simplicity, "God created man in His own image."? Education, p 130.

Richard Ruhling, MD
www.atheist.netfirms.com/

First-There seems to be three approaches for dealing with those who disagree with the views espoused by this website. 1) To attack or dismiss the critics as "shouting", or rude, drivel, irrelavent, or the like. 2) To hide behind the guise of "God is love". As if that justifies the attempt to undermine scripture. 3) That we just have different interpretations of the same evidence. While in the temporal sense, that may be true-in the spiritual your placing both as equal views. They are not. QUESTION: (Now hold on a minute, before you go and hit that delete or edit button-just wait for the question). Did you seriously think you could insinuate something as insulting as about E.G. White accepting, or "maturing" into evolution if she had lived longer, and not get response? Did you truly not think that on the WWW there would not be any to step forward and defend the faith? And all this, while using the name "Adventist" on your site?

Second-A point no one has yet attempted to refute on here,(but rather criticized me for using colors, or insinuate I first have to know what I'm talking about in order to illicit a response, etc.-possibly the result of cognitive dissonance-but who knows). That is-You can't point to the fossil record(which contains pain, suffering and death-results of sin) and tell people it came before mankind. For sin entered the world through mankind.

Third-The churches assault the 4th commandment by instituting sunday in place of sabbath. The world assaults His role as Creator by instituting Darwinian cross-species evolution-myth, fable and fallicy of the modern age. From whence do you think the assaults on the 4th commandment flow from? I would guess the same source.

Fourth- As for science itself-How about the theories of Irreducible Complexity or Coherance-both of which shatters evolution to its core.

BE SOBER, BE VIGILANT; BECAUSE YOUR ADVERSARY THE devil, AS A ROARING LION, WALKETH ABOUT, SEEKING WHOM he MAY DEVOUR. 1 PETER 5:8

Since this blog brought up sister White-what does she have to say? "Even facts may be so arranged and stated as to constitute falsehoods. Some are adept at this business, and they will seek to justify themselves for departing from strict veracity." Testimonies for the Church vol. 4, p.335 "There will come a crises in every one of our institutions. Influences will be at work against them from both believers and unbelievers." Testimonies for the Church vol. 5, p.479

Oh, and one more thing. Where are all the pretty colors? Who removed the color palette from here. I can't play with it anymore....

David Newman wrote:

--

If you accept the presupposition of uniformitarianism then those whopropose millions of years for life on earth make perfect sense.   Ifyou accept the presupposition of catastrophism and that the entrance ofsin changed some of the fundamental laws by which our earth operatesthen you come up with a different interpretation of the facts. 

--

I would be really careful using the phrase Catastrophism. It is really misleading as Uniformatarians believe and accept the idea of floods and volcanoes and earthquakes etc.

Catastrophism as the Wikepedia articles notes:

"Catastrophism of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was closely tied to religion and catastrophic origins were considered miraculous rather than natural events.[11] "

I showed this in a recent article on my blog:

"As I stated in the conversation at the meeting which Jonathan Gallagher held in Olympia Wa., (at some point they said they would post the talks, you can read the written presentations at: http://pineknoll.org/ )We are in trouble if our concept of God is dependent upon gettingpeople to believe the Genesis story which is very scientificallyuntenable. Even before the advent of Darwinthe Christian thinkers did not hold to the simplistic creation story ofGenesis. Once people in the 1700’s began to look at the rocks and laterthe fossils in the rocks they realized that there are many layers of rocks, and different kinds of rocks. So they developed the theory known as Neptuneism, the idea being that there were a succession of many worldwide floods (related idea known as catastrophism)of which Noah’s flood is simply the most recent. Each succession as thewater evaporated left a different type of rock strata. Ultimately withthe different strata there were different fossils. Each time there wasa worldwide flood God created life again and repopulated the world(successive creation). Thus was produced the special creation view thatDarwin was taught and which with his observations of volcanism he determined not to be necessary. Further it took away the Natural theologyaspects since without the need for special creation it took away theneed for God’s interaction with the world. Nature was not so perfectlybalanced, why did not God create rabbits in Australia since when they were brought there they did wonderfully? Natural selection saw a ruthless struggle for survival, so instead of the natural theologyshowing how wonderful the character of God is because of the beauty andharmony of creation we see a nature that uses chance and cruelty.Challenging God’s justice and love." http://cafesda.blogspot.com/2009/10/does-christianity-fall-without-fall....

 dvddvdd wrote:

"Did you seriously think you could insinuate something as insulting as about E.G. White accepting, or "maturing" into evolution if she had lived longer, and not get response?"

I don't think Erv was insulting to the memory or minstry of E.G. White.  I don't think that she herself could ever have accepted a less specific view of creation.  However she did show the ability to work with those, with whom she disagreed, without demanding absolute unity on all points.  I do agree with Erv that wars, even cultural and theological ones, will damage the Kingdom of God.  I think Ellen would have sought to avoid that.

"You can't point to the fossil record(which contains pain, suffering and death-results of sin) and tell people it came before mankind. For sin entered the world through mankind."

Hi, all people.  All the scientific evidence without exeption clearly suggests that virtually all fossils did form before there were people on the Earth.  There is zero evidence that humans lived when either the trilobites or the dinosaurs roamed the earth.  There I did it!  The assertion that pain, suffering and death only came about as a result of Adams sin is not explicitly stated in the Bible.

"From whence do you think the assaults on the 4th commandment flow from?"

In our world today is mostly from businessmen with lots of support from conservatives such as yourself.  As for the ultimate source I would say it come from selfishness, but you can insert a name that starts with S if you like.

" As for science itself-How about the theories of Irreducible Complexity"(?)

Well, it would be a major new theory in science, if they could find sufficient evidence to support it.  Up to now that hasn't happened.

 "There will come a crises in every one of our institutions. Influences will be at work against them from both believers and unbelievers." Testimonies for the Church vol. 5, p.479 

So some of the attacks come from believers?  Those trying to "purify" the church perhaps?

 Hope that helps,

Martin

Dear Martin Schratt,

As for as for E.G.White "working" with with those whom she disagrees with, uhm... No sir, with all due respect. Some of her harshes critiscisms were for those within our church for wrong belief more than those outside the church. Also what you call "culture wars" as it relates to this topic, she would call the word of God.

"Those who question the reliability of the scripture records have let go their anchor and are left to beat about upon the rocks of infidelity....In true science there can be nothing contrary to the teaching of the word of God., for both have the same Author." Testimonies for the Church vol. 8 p. 28

Also, I think you make Mrs. Whites point in the above quote. Listen to yourself.  You said science "clearly suggest" fossils were here before man. Are you serious? Did you say "suggests"?Is this like Climategate where those scientists e-mails about global warming got hacked and showed they have been faking it and trying to discredit their critics. Same thing takes place in evolution. There are many scientists who disagree with evolution but they are not "consensus" scientists. But thats just it-science isn't about a popular vote. The fact that many disagree, doesn't make them any less credible than the other scientists. If there is NO consensus, just the MAJORITIES view, that in and of itself discredits all of evolution. As for sin in the world, thats where the pain, suffering and death come from. In Gods perfect Creation is perfection, until marred by sin. And sin entered through mankind. I would simply point to Mrs. Whites quote above----and in the blog your responding to.......... And this makes you happy? Your apparently happy with yourself THINKING that you refuted that point, which you didn't, but you said "There I did it". ---Sir, how sad....

As for your response to the assault on the 4th Commandment....That was revealing. You made reference to "businessmen" and "conservatives". I would simply say it sounds like you have political leanings . That would explain your views on here. Your allowing your political WORLDview to influence your Biblical views. You allow the temporal to influence the spiritual. That would explain alot on here.

As for being irreducibly complex, as well as coherence, they have books written about it. For you to say that evidence for it hasn't been found yet- well I point out again, you people continue to dismiss those scientists who disagree with you, as not even existing...Again, if there is dissent in science, then there is NO science as we understand it. True science isn't supposed to be up to majority opinion. The very fact that scientists disagree rocks evolution-as-fact to its core (if it even has or ever had a core).

As for your final point, I think you know EXACTLY who she would be referencing as it relates to this subject. And as for using the word "purge" why do those of you trying to assault the word of God and beliefs of the church, portray yourselves as martyrs or something?  I didn't bring E.G.W. up on this blog-her name is in Dr. Taylors blog. I prefer using just scripture, but since she was injected into the blog this month- If she was around today I think she would be writing a Testimonies for the Church volume 10-and to what group?-U know...

Hope that HELPS 

J David, Years ago I read "From Crisis to Victory." In the back of the book about 1888 are several sermons delivered by EGW at the conference. At the time I was reading, I thought that the sermons would address theological and doctrinal issues related to the conference. As I recall, I was disappointed. Much of what she had to say was a call for unity, respect, Christian courtesy, charity, brotherly love.

She was saddened by the attitude of the participants, their lack of charity,not their wrongly held beliefs. Apparently, some of the participants had stooped even to mocking those with whom they differed. Bitterness, resentment, and contempt characterized the discussions. There was little evidence of the brotherly love which Jesus spoke of and of which you have reminded us.

Some of us who post on these boards, if we took our opprobrium and disrespect down to a local tavern, we'd have our teeth knocked out or a beer bottle cracked over our head. No such accountability or consequences here.

Even prison inmates understand that most  other people are entitled to respect, regardless of their status. And to disrespect the wrong person can lead to death or a severe beating.

Those of us who have such strong convictions, convictions which lead us to abuse  and disrespect those with whom we disagree, would be ennobled by taking to heart the words you penned on 11/24.  When our beliefs lead us to hate, rather than love others, something is profoundly askew.

If I may be permitted to quote Elaine Nelson: "Fundamentalists in all religions, and in Adventism, have developed a creed (the 28 Fundamentals) that defines Adventist. There was nothing like this when early Christianity was formed, nor when Adventism began. This was a gradual development, and will likely be enlarged as time continues. Are the 28 Fundamentals a guide to decide who can be "in" and who is "out"? Compare that with the simplicity of the first Christians to see how it has evolved." Accurate. Well stated.

(And it tells us a lot about "Hansen" when he says views of Elaine, to quote him, are "poison." To most of the rest of us, her comments make a lot of sense. He later said that Adventist "rogue elements on faculties in Adventist institutions, cultural Adventist types, who have pleasing personalities, are well educated, articulate and worldly wise . . . are still devils." Well, that's clear enough. No beating around the bush there. In addition, the comments of David Read which pontificates that Elaine "is not a Christian believer" and insists that "All of this trouble [sin, etc. etc.] started with dialog, Eve and the serpent" tells us a lot about Mr. Read. As for the comments of "hlfnisn," I would suggest that they are best ignored-although I briefly violated my own suggestion.)

Reading over the wide-ranging comments on this topic posted over the last month provides an excellent commentary on the fact that there are a variety of Adventisms currently represented among North American Adventists. Yes, Adventisms (plural). I would suggest that those who argue that there continues to be a unitary Adventist faith community in North America are out of touch with the reality of the obvious ethnic, ideological, and sociocultural diversity most easily exhibited at major Adventist medical and educational centers and on this website.

With regard to the variety of views in Adventism on creationism, I don't think anyone questions that a high percentage of Adventist laity, and especially recent Adventist converts, even in North America, have been taught that Young Earth and/or Young Life Creationism (YEC/YLC Creationism) is "Biblical" creationism. It would be very surprising if they do not believe this since they have been told again and again in official Adventist church publications that this is what a "true" Adventist believes.

However, it is clear that among Adventists with some graduate education in the sciences and specifically science faculty members at Adventist colleges and universities that the percentage of that group in North America accepting the standard Adventist YEC/YLC position drops dramatically. That's a simple fact and almost certainly reflects the increased information concerning the overwhelming weight of the scientific evidence that supports the standard understanding of the history of life on this planet.

Now the comments of a number of those posting on this web site vividly illustrate how arguments disputing the previous statement are constructed. Let me suggest that some of these statements are, at best, silly and, may I suggest, be best simply ignored-such as the ones about how the Devil works.

In addition, it would appear to be an accurate generalization that two factors are associated with a dramatic decrease in belief in fundamentalist propositions concerning the Genesis narratives. The first is increased factual knowledge of the world view and the historical and cultural contexts of how the Biblical narratives were framed. The second is an increased general level of formal education in the sciences.

No amount of ranting on the part of Adventist or non-Adventist fundamentalists on this or any other web site will be able to dispute the empirical accuracy of this generalization. Obviously, there are individual exceptions. There are certainly individuals who are well aware of the scientific data and reject its implications when it comes to earth history (and many other things) as illustrated in the comments posted on this topic on this web site. One question that might be posed is whether these individuals are aware of the history of scholarly understanding how the text of Genesis and other parts of the Old and New Testament developed? Some may be aware of this data and reject the implications of it as well. Why any of us accept or reject certain propositions would be an interesting topic for a future discussion.

The statements that I particularly would like to note have been posted on this blog by Shane Hilde and Sean Pitman. In a November 14 posting; Mr. Hilde stated that "The [Adventist] church could be dead wrong on this issue [Young Life Creationism]; however, it is the official position [of the Seventh-day Adventist Church] and as such people who choose to be employed by the church are obligated to uphold that position." Sean Pitman commented "If an [Adventist] scientist, or any other [member of the Adventist Church] for that matter comes to this conclusion [that traditional Adventist Young Life Creationism is not tenable for both theological and/or scientific reasons] why stay in a Church organization that has stated fundamental positions that go so counter to the ‘scientific'evidence?"

Here and on the EducateTruth.site, Sean Pitman in particular repeats over and over again, as if he has adopted this dictum as his personal mantra, the dogma that Adventist faculty and clergy are, first and foremost, professional salesmen and saleswomen hired to push a particular brand of religion. They are like sales representatives of the Nike Shoe Company hired to push only the Nike brand of shoe. If they think some elements of another brand of shoe is better, according to Sean, the only choice they have is to quit Nike and go to work for that other shoe company.

Sean seems to think that a religious community should be evaluated on the same basis as a capitalistic for-profit company-a very strange position. He also appears not to realize how arrogant is his claim that "Not all who call themselves "SDA" are really SDA in that they do not support the basis of SDA organization - i.e., the stated positions of the SDA Church as an organization." He seems to believe that he has some God-given insight to determine and proclaim who is and who is not an Adventist and even who is, and who, is not, a "real" Christian. We can wonder who gave him the mandate to make such pronouncements.

Let's call this strange point of view as the "All Or Nothing" or AON argument. According to AON advocates, those faculty members or Adventist clergy who will not teach that 100% of the 28 Fundamentals are 100% true with a good conscience are, at best, intellectually dishonest individuals and, at worst, thieves (because they take a paycheck), who should, if they had any personal integrity, immediately resign their positions and find employment elsewhere. The AON position was definitively advanced several years ago by the church's most outspoken apologist, Clifford Goldstein. His argument and those of Pitman and Hilde are that the truthfulness or validity of what the Adventist denomination currently teaches or believes is essentially irrelevant. If somehow the political processes in Adventism declared that "black" was really "white," then, according to the logic of AON proponents, those that disputed that teaching were not to be considered Adventists.

Finally, I certainly resonate with the comment of "chelen" who suggests that many of our educated younger members "know that the evidence for deep time and evolution is beyond doubt. They need help to reconcile their Adventist faith with reality." This is one of the goals of some who post on this web site and publish articles in Adventist Today-although Adventist Today, as such, does not take a position for or against any specific belief statement other than to provide a forum for free and open dialogue, feature the best elements of Adventist Christianity, and reach the highest standards of journalistic excellence and integrity.

Erv,

Normally, you demonstrate the high road in the tone of your posts. The malicious nature of your previous one puzzles me. It's tantamount to false witness against your neighbor.

I  believe the Bible. I accept the testimony of Scripture, that it was inspired by God.  I'm not ashamed of that. I also believe that salvation is by faith in Jesus Christ, his miraculous birth, sinelss life, vicarious death, resurrection, and ascension.

You have not been gracious enough to share the corollaries of your views on the Creation/flood narratives. The creation motif permeates Scripture from beginning to end and is inextricably bound up with the redemptive work of Christ.

Perhaps you have developed some elaborate lie which you tell yourself regarding this matter, that you can somehow be a Christian and reject the supernatural. Obviously you believe you can be an Adventist. At least there is some originality there, how you deceive yourself, if you do. Perhaps you realize the implications of your views on Scripture but choose "not to talk in front of the children."

I once asked a physician acquaintance about the professional capability of another physician. After a moment, he said, "She's a parrot doctor. She can only do what she has learned. If confronted by an unusual situation, something unanticipated or unexpected, which she has not prepared for, she is at a loss."

There are a few parrot types posting on these boards, individuals who merely spew the faith destroying doctrines set forth a long time ago by infidels. Nothing original in these things. Any atheist, infidel, skeptic would/could parrot the same. I rejected this approach to the Bible long ago.

The work of scholars such as Edwin Thiele, who dismantled prevailing critical theories regarding chronology in Scripture, was not merely parroting the unbelief of others. It was the work of a man moved by faith, one who believed the Bible and demonstrated that the Bible was true.

People who uncritically accept critical scholarship are not thinking . Their carnal heart inclines to apostasy, so they "feel" it is right. Rodger Young, an Oxford trained mathematician, has brought his considerable abilities to Scripture and used them to validate Scripture. His critical evaluation of critical theories has shown them to be nothing more than the work of people who approach the Bible without faith or spiritual discernment 

http://home.swbell.net/rcyoung8/papers.html

Him and his approach to Scripture, I respect.

"If I may be permitted to quote Elaine Nelson: "Fundamentalists in all religions, and in Adventism, have developed a creed (the 28 Fundamentals) that defines Adventist. There was nothing like this when early Christianity was formed, nor when Adventism began. This was a gradual development, and will likely be enlarged as time continues. Are the 28 Fundamentals a guide to decide who can be "in" and who is "out"? Compare that with the simplicity of the first Christians to see how it has evolved." Accurate. Well stated."

Erv, Like much of what Elaine types, her remark about creeds not existing when  "early Christianity was formed " is erroneous. Acts 15 contains what could easily be construed as an early creed. The Didache, which many scholars date to the first century  is a creedal type document. While neither of these  "creeds" are as sophisticated as the 28 Adventist fundamentals, to say that there was "nothing like" a doctrinal statement or creed in  NT times does not fit the evidence.

I Corinthians 15 contains a creedal type statement:

"I delivered unto you that which I received, by which you are also saved, if you hold fast, unless your faith has been in vain:

Jesus died for our sins, according to the Scriptures [fundamental belief #1]

He was buried [fundamental belief # 2]

He rose again the third day [fundamental belief #3].

He was seen of many witnesses [fundamental belief # 4]"

Notice the exclusionary elements of the "creed." The implication is clear that without faith in these elements, one is not saved,  belief is in vain. 

Ervin, Elaine doesn't believe in the supernatural or miraculous, including the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, nor that Christ was and is the Son of God.  Elaine is a fine person, and subscribes to Christian ethics, but I'm on very safe ground in stating that she's not a Christian believer.

As to the second quote that you attributed to me, about dialog between Eve and the Serpent being the beginning of troubles, that wasn't my quote.  It may have been Hansen's. 

Hansen is right that there is something profoundly delusional about insisting that you are an Adventist when you reject all of the most important Adventist doctrines, including the literal creation week.

I think that I will allow Elaine to speak for herself as to what she does or does not believe. I'm always amazed in the mind-reading abilities that certain individuals think they possess. As for who, or who is not, a Christian believer, I am very glad that neither you nor anyone else can make that kind of pronouncement about anyone else. However, what does interest me is why you and certain others think that have the right and responsibility-almost a compulsion-to make these kinds of judgments about other people. Who appointed you to do that task? I would think you might consider just making sure you are a Christian believer and let everyone else make up their minds about themselves. Let it go-you might feel better.

With regard to the "Story of Eve and the Talking Snake"-I'm glad whoever edited that part of Genesis included it in the final version we have. It is a priceless narrative and one of those stories which should give us a hint that we are not to take this and the other parts of the early parts of Genesis as literal.

You perhaps do not read my comments carefully.

The corporate Adventist Church as a Christian denomination certainly needs to be come to a consensus by some political mechanism on a list of Fundamental Beliefs. Every other church does this, so why not the Adventist Church?

I am not sure why it needs anything else but the historic affirmations of the Christian Church but I suppose that it serves a purpose to make a statement about its own historical take on various Christian understandings. Regretfully, in a few places in its Fundamental Beliefs, e.g., the Investigative Judgment and the view that it is "the Remnant Church," it goes completely outside historic Christian understandings. Of course, our Mormon friends do the same thing using other topics. Thankfully, we Adventists have done this in a somewhat more modest manner.

Like every other Adventist Christian-yourself included-I think it is appropriate for any individual member to add his voice when he/she agrees or disagrees with how the political process crafted a given statement of belief.

What I actively dispute is what certain members of the corporate church-such as you--seem to think what should be done with the Fundamental Beliefs and other corporate church pronouncements. Based on your statements, you think that they and, for example, the pronouncements of a General Conference Committee, should be used as a means of deciding who is in and who is out of the Adventist community and who should be a pastor or teach at an Adventist college or university.

You and those who agree with you have every right to propose that, and I and others have every right to oppose that use of these documents in the way you wish them to be used. You and others will put out your Biblical texts to support your positions and I and others will put out our Bible texts to support other positions. Would you have it any other way?

I hope this helps.

Erv Taylor:

The statements that I particularly would like to note have been posted on this blog by Shane Hilde and Sean Pitman. In a November 14 posting; Mr. Hilde stated that "The [Adventist] church could be dead wrong on this issue [Young Life Creationism]; however, it is the official position [of the Seventh-day Adventist Church] and as such people who choose to be employed by the church are obligated to uphold that position." Sean Pitman commented "If an [Adventist] scientist, or any other [member of the Adventist Church] for that matter comes to this conclusion [that traditional Adventist Young Life Creationism is not tenable for both theological and/or scientific reasons] why stay in a Church organization that has stated fundamental positions that go so counter to the ‘scientific'evidence?"

Here and on the EducateTruth.site, Sean Pitman in particular repeats over and over again, as if he has adopted this dictum as his personal mantra, the dogma that Adventist faculty and clergy are, first and foremost, professional salesmen and saleswomen hired to push a particular brand of religion. They are like sales representatives of the Nike Shoe Company hired to push only the Nike brand of shoe. If they think some elements of another brand of shoe is better, according to Sean, the only choice they have is to quit Nike and go to work for that other shoe company.

It is a fact that pastors and teachers are indeed employees.  They are beholden to do what their employer has actually asked them to do.  As it currently stands, the General conference of the Seventh-day Adventist Church has in fact asked all pastors and teacher to publicly support its stated position on origin - specifically with regards to the promotion of a literal 6-day creation week.  

"We call on all boards and educators at Seventh-day Adventist institutions at all levels to continue upholding and advocating the church’s position on origins.  We, along with Seventh-day Adventist parents, expect students to receive a thorough, balanced, and scientifically rigorous exposure to and affirmation of our historic belief in a literal, recent six-day creation, even as they are educated to understand and assess competing philosophies of origins that dominate scientific discussion in the contemporary world."

http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/statements/main_stat55.html

Now, you may not like the fact that the SDA Church has actually asked all of its paid representatives to support this position.  However, it is a fact that the SDA Church, as an organization has done so.  Upon what moral grounds, then, does anyone who is a paid employee of any organization have a right to go against the clearly stated lawful wishes of his/her employer while taking money from that employer?

If you disagree with the SDA Church - great.  Just don't expect to get paid for your efforts.   

Sean seems to think that a religious community should be evaluated on the same basis as a capitalistic for-profit company-a very strange position. He also appears not to realize how arrogant is his claim that "Not all who call themselves "SDA" are really SDA in that they do not support the basis of SDA organization - i.e., the stated positions of the SDA Church as an organization." He seems to believe that he has some God-given insight to determine and proclaim who is and who is not an Adventist and even who is, and who, is not, a "real" Christian. We can wonder who gave him the mandate to make such pronouncements.

Anyone can claim to be anything.  That doesn't mean that a person really is what he or she claims to be.  Actions speak louder than words...  etc.  

This is not to say that I make any moral judgements here.  Just because I don't think you're a "real SDA" in any meaningful sense of the word doesn't mean I think you're anything other than a morally upright upstanding individual who I would not be at all suprised to see in Heaven someday. 

Even so, I do find it hard for someone who has publicly admitted, as you have, that you know of no good evidence for God's existence... to take on the label of "SDA" - outside of social reasons perhaps. It just isn't a very meaningful claim on your part.  It doesn't give a person who doesn't already know you an accurate idea of who you are or what you really believe.

You know, it's Ok not to be SDA - right?  There are some very good agnostics and even atheists in this world who I personally believe will be in Heaven someday.  This does not, however, qualify a person as belonging to a certain type of belief system - certainly not as a paid representative of a particular organized Church like the SDA Church. 

You may even be "Christian" as far as your moral outlook, but that doesn't mean you subscribe to all of the doctrinal statements of Christ - such as his clearly evident support of a literal interpretation of the Genesis account and others which you do not hold to be true like He evidently did. You actually think your knowledge and your modern scientific outlook are superior to that of the One who claimed to have personally seen and talked with Abraham and to have personally seen Satan fall from Heaven like lightening. Yet, at the same time, you somehow claim to be a believer in this same guy who didn't know what he was talking about on anything that could actually be tested as part of physical reality? 

Upon what basis do you believe His metaphysical claims if Jesus was so wrong regarding his claims concerning the physical world?  What about the Virgin Birth?  Do you believe that?  What about His resurrection?  Do you believe that?  If so, upon what basis basides blind faith or strong emotion or desire? If you see no good evidence for the very existence of God, how can you possibly argue for the validity of Jesus' claims which also cannot be directly tested?  And, if you don't believe in these claims of Jesus, why are you a "Christian"?  What would that claim actually mean? - that you're just a social Christian like you're just a social Adventist?  You like the community, but not any of the actual SDA beliefs or many of the Christian beliefs? 

Really, I'm confused by your claims.  You're redefined so many words so that few actually know what you mean when you use them.  Because of this you aren't really communicating effectively. Even if this is not deliberate on your part, many people who aren't already familiar with your actual beliefs hear you say something that you really don't intend to convey.  So, why not use words that everyone will clearly understand? Why be so opaque? Why not be more transparent in your use of words and labels?

Also, I want to make it clear, yet again, that while beliefs do not save a person (motive does), this doesn't mean beliefs aren't important or valuable when it comes to making life better here and now. Also, it doesn't mean that maintaining order within an organization isn't important as well.  Without the maintenance of order and discipline within an organization, you simply won't have the organization very much longer.  Order and discipline within an organization, even a church organization is perfectly fine and even necessary, as long as the individual is completely free of any civil penalty when it comes to joining or leaving...

Sean Pitman

www.DetectingDesign.com