And this is why Adventism needs Jared Wright.

Good job, amigo!

Great post, Jared!

I too am puzzled by the the evolution = no more Sabbath line
of reasoning used by some. I understand the fear, but to me, regardless of the reason given for the command, the ultimate reason we observe it is the fact that God commands it.

In other words, it is the WHO behind the command that gives it it's authority, not the WHY.

I do no observe Sabbath because the earth was created in 7 days; I observe it because God commands me to do it.

God can command us because he created us, and perhaps one of the reasons he does it is for our own benefit, so we can remember this that we do not bring ourselves into existence.

Jared, Are you saying that you never were aware of the Decalogue recorded in Deuteronomy until grad school? What were you doing all those years you were supposedly studying the Bible? A person who takes up the study of the Bible would usually become aware of the difference between the account in Exodus and Deuteronomy within a year or so of reading Scripture. You spent how many years in Adventist schools and had never read the torah?

Accounts of creation and redemption both attribute the work to the "hand" of God. With a concordance, one can find numerous references to God's hands doing things in the Bible, such as creating the heavens, fashioning man, delivering Israel from Egypt.

It is a mistake to suggest that the Sabbath is not dependent upon the creation narrative. Do you think that people who reject the Genesis account of creation accept the Exodus as actual fact? The leaven of unbelief and infidelity which infects the minds of the scoffers doesn't stop with Genesis.

What possible basis would there be to believe Exodus apart from faith, the same faith that allows one to believe the Genesis account of Creation?

Incidentally, the creation account is not limited to Genesis. It appears frequently in other parts of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. How could someone who lacks faith in creation believe in the virgin birth and resurrection of Christ? After all, Jesus is described as the Creator by NT writers. If they got that wrong, why would they have other important facts right?

It's kind of uncomfortable for me to see you publicly struggle with unbelief. I don't believe for a minute that your strugles are based upon honest intellectual inquiry. The Bible can never be understood or accepted based upon intellect alone. The battle which goes on over every soul is not an intellectual one. It's a spiritual battle.

One of my neighbors committed suicide, supposedly when he realized that he was gay. He simply lacked the zest for life that would allow him to live it as a gay man. There are many people who live their lives as unbelievers, perhaps most people. Imagine, unbelief as a cross to bear, like the gay man's sexual orientation.

I can see how someone could even go into ministerial work as an unbeliever, much in the same way that a gay man marries a woman. Can you understand that?

Hansen,

Thanks for your insights into my psyche.

“Scripture is very aware of numerous rational rationales for Sabbath observance.”

I remember when I personally discovered the meaning of Sabbath rest in Hebrews. For me, Sabbath became an experience of “entering into God’s rest.” No longer bound by obedience to a command, I now enjoy the blessed rest from my labor of trying to achieve salvation by my own efforts.

Jared

You offer a great insight, but you aim is slightly off the bulls eye. You take on some zealots with a self-righteous cause--correctly so. However, you pass over how they got that way. They had to have been carefully taught!

The purges in the church always come from the top down. All the way back to Canright and Kellog et al to the present context.

Of course power isn't to the people. Power is to the money and the money holders. Even in Christ's day the power elite knew how to control a crowd. The power structure proved it could be resolute at Glacier view--now they can and must show charity.

In both instances, the issue has been labeled rather than explored within the bounds of due process. In both instances it has been the institution rather than the issue that all effort has been expended to shelter and protect.

Maybe Teach the Truth Part 3 should have a subtitle:
Practice candor and fair play in the search for Truth and its champions.

Under such a format how could there be any losers? Proslytizing in any form for any cause is wrong.

To any observer Spectrum is moving further and further from its institutional roots and well as further and further from the corpus of the body of believers. Is that good or bad?

I am, of course, pleased that Spectrum gives me voice, dispite my critical viewpoint weaned by being not so innocent a by-stander. Yet the process has given me a much clearer vision of salvation and my personal need for a Creator/Redeemer/Everlasting God who made me, saved me, and will bring me home for eternity. I feel sorry for those who doubt or deny such Grace. Tom

Tom

Tom,

Your comments are very intriguing, particularly the line about Spectrum moving from its institutional roots. I am not sure what you are referring to. Which institution do you mean? The next question would be, "What does moving away from that involve as you see it?"

There is only one account of creation in Genesis. the so-called second account starting with Gen 2:5 is not a creation account. It is the history of the world according to Adam. The account in Gen 1 is what God told Adam and Eve. Only He could know.

Jared

Good questions: I am not sure I can give you a complete answer. I was there at its founding of Spectrum. As I understood the goal was to give scholars a voice in the face of challenges emerging that were threatening the Church and which administrators seemed unable to address with clarity--following the publication of the Book Answers to Questions on Doctrine---Letters to the Churches--and the emerging Brinsmead agitation. The purpose was freedom of dialogue with a focus to preserve the historic positions of Adventism.

The second generation of Spectrum leadership--exudes a far more liberal view of the world and of human behavior than traditionally held by the official church body--the lay people are caught in the middle between Cliff on one side and the editorship of Spectrum on the other. Every thing they have been indoctrinated with is coherent with the Review position so forcefully expressed by Cliff. If Cliff is the voice of the Church--certainly, the cry of the people is an accurate echo. Thus, there should be no surprise at the editorial offices of Spectrum.

On the other hand, the brethren handled Southern and others so severely they are neutered in facing any challenge within the scholarship of the senior academic institutions of the Church.

Finally, the entire Church structure is so fragile as to be in immediate danger of collapse by any challenge of the magnitude of Glacier view or Southern.

Spectrum seems to be pushing to bring such a challenge to the fore. Which is 180 degrees out from its roots. Those are my immediate thoughts on the current status within Adventism.

The problem is that without a doubt Jan Paulsen is a lot closer to Spectrum than to Cliff. So now what--your pieces are a good start--but not as bold as I would have liked.
Tom

Tom,
You stated: "...the entire Church structure is so fragile as to be in immediate danger of collapse by any challenge of the magnitude of Glacier view or Southern."
I am very aware of the Glacier View and the dealings with Desmond Ford, but I am not aware of any "Southern" challenge. Please forgive my ignorance and share with me what happened at Southern that was as noteworthy as the Glacier View and Des Ford.
Don

Oh, Jared, I hope this won't be taken the wrong way - I love you for this article.
And for your evident good humour, as in "Thanks for your insights into my psyche". Hehe.
Pretty soon after starting a study of the Law in Exodus and Deut, one's mind hovers over the "writ in stone with God's own finger" part. If that kind of digression happens while the preacher is declaiming with great authority, somehow it's the brittle authoritarianism that is seen to crumble around the edges. Sadly, in my experience, the figures that ought to step in with trowels and commence repairs are found elsewhere. Then, like a spreading cancer, the mortar rots away.
Your model of a living tree is much better.
But, why does this attitude of 'knock out one brick and the whole thing collapses' persist and is formative for denominational positions?
I believe it is connected to a thought that came out of a recent article on the teaching of small children. If we took one of those kiddies, freshly imbued with God's Love, into a typical place of preaching, when a Lion is mentioned what does the kiddie think of? Is he/she still warm to the truth of Isaiah 11, or does the chill of 1 Peter - "roaring lion your adversary the devil prowls around, looking for someone to devour" - threaten to freeze the heart and soul?
If we, denominationally, are convinced that Satan is hiding beneath every rock and page, waiting for us to drop our guard so he can have us, then it's no wonder we are backed into corners. It's no wonder we can become blind to truth, if we have been conditioned to be fearful of life.

Don,

I don't want to speak for Tom, but one Southern challenge that comes to mind happened in 1982. I think that Tom was there at the time, but you'd have to ask him for the details. Spectrum recently re-posted its article on that debacle here.

Trevor,

I'm somewhat at a loss too when it comes to treating our understanding of truth as static and rigid. It may be because it is comforting to be able to say with certainty, "I know what I have to believe, and I already believe it, so I'm good." It gives a sense of reassurance that seems to be as necessary for people as any other component of religion.

But while people need to feel assurance that they're right theologically (and therefore right with God, the thinking goes), there's a certain danger, I think, in believing that we already have settled what there is to believe and know, and that it cannot be altered. That is certainly not an Adventist affirmation, judging by the openness of the pioneers to new light, and the agreement of those who drafted the 27 Fundamentals that they would always be subject to revision.

And yet, here we are.

Although some may think new ground is being broken here, it isn't. Some of us have considered and resolved or considered irrelevant these matters years or even decades ago.

The Lutheran church was split over a controversy not unlike what is going on in Adventism right now. Although the issue was "higher critical" approaches to Scripture, the relevance of the issue is evinced by the following quote from a Wikipedia article on Seminex, [Lutheran] seminary in exile.

The author makes an excellent point with a simple rose. Does one appreciate it by observing, smelling, feeling and perhaps giving it? Or is it best appreciated by pulling it apart and posting its various parts on a bulletin board?

"Or consider the conflict between the creation stories in Genesis 1 (P) and Genesis 2-3 (J). In 1981 Robert Alter is his The Art of Biblical Narrative protested against the dissection of the text by the source critics. Alter conceded that Genesis 1 was P and Genesis 2-3 J, but their combination was attributed to the hands of an author, not a redactor. The Genesis author chose to combine these two versions of creation precisely because he understood that his subject was essentially contradictory, essentially resistant to consistent linear formulation. Why does the Bible have Eve created after Adam and inferior to him in Genesis 2 when we are told in Genesis 1 that the man and woman were created at the same time and the same manner. Alter thought this made perfect sense as an account of the contradictory facts of woman’s role in the post edenic scheme of things. On the one hand, the writer is a member of a patriarchal society in which women have more limited legal privileges and institutional functions than do men, but the writer also had a fund of personal observation to draw on which could lead him to conclude that woman, contrary to institutional definitions, could be a daunting adversary or a worthy partner, quite man’s equal in a moral or psychological perspective. Alter has been widely criticized by feminist critics as insensitive to issues of women--rightly so in my judgment. But Alter’s point here is that to read these two accounts separately as sources is to misunderstand them and to read the biblical world much too simply."

http://fontes.lstc.edu/~rklein/Documents/seminex.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seminex

Jared

The entire Department of Religion at Southern Union College was under attack by a several self-supporting institutional leaders and augmented by the McKee's. The issue was doctrine--contrary to the F.D.Nichol/Ken Wood/Don Neufield editorial
view. All of the charged faculty had recent doctorates from non-adventist seminaries.

Sumts a former teacher at Southern was also a target.

The President wouldn't dismiss his faculty. He was replaced and a new president brought in who either fired three faculty or caused them to resign. The smell was of burning flesh--yet the Southern Union Conference President was promoted to President of the North American Division.

Now Southern has one of the strongest theatrical programs in the North American Division--when the issue was the permissiveness of the Department of Religion's view on Righteousness by Faith. Go figure.

It is a much smaller world now. It is the Cliff crowd that stand by the books--the Spectrum crowd is "Yes! Buting! every dogmatic position the Church holds dear. Such a spilt would cut the cash flow to the point that the Church as it is known would fall.

Other than Herb Douglass, who among the Spectrum insiders hold to the level of inspiration of E.G.Whate as did M.L. Andreasen, F.D. Nichol et al? Of course, the "enlightened breed" repect the "third rail" aspect of any challenge--but suble questions and/or faint praise on everything from novels, to diet, to masterbation, to amalgamation to origins, are patronizingly challenged. The right wing find that intolerable and disloyal. Yet those every liberal advocates hold the ears, minds and hearts of most of the under thirty crowd.

There is only Alden Thompson who projects a rational hold on traditional views, While the body of the Church has a Cliff Goldstein aggressive view of cleaning house. The egg heads are closer to Unitarianism then they even realize. Adventism to them is a cultural thing not a doctrinal thing.

The young people votes with their feet. The middle agers shop around. The seniors endure until death spares them the agony of emptiness. If the Lord does not return within a few decades--there will be just enough left to turn out the lights. With only tribal vestigial shadows remaining. Weimar should be a signal that the right flank will not hold.

I am no prophet, but I have watch with sorrow, the intellectual decline in the feeder churches in the Southern Union. It would be far better if someone in the Augusta SDA church would stand up and read an article from Ministry Mag. or Liberty--it would at least have been proofed and reasonably coherent.

Jared: That is how it looks to this old man. The days of Edward Heppenstall are long past.
Tom

"But while people need to feel assurance that they're right theologically (and therefore right with God, the thinking goes), there's a certain danger, I think, in believing that we already have settled what there is to believe and know, and that it cannot be altered."

One of the issues that I don't think has gotten quite the attention it merits is the role played by SDA evangelism on a more or less yearly basis by such groups as Amazing Facts, Ken Cox, and David Asscherick (among others), where doctrinal certainty, and the exaltation of Adventist uniqueness, combined with a mostly end-time focus on "readiness" tends to crowd out any more nuanced spirituality that might be occuring in the church (or in the academy) throughout the rest of the year. In my last years in Adventism, I found this collision rather jarring.

The result is, the church's evangelical outreach has the effect of reinforcing the idea that "we already have settled what there is to believe and know, and that it cannot be altered." In particular, it is here, in the typical evangelic meeting, that the Exodus 20 (and Revelation 14) perspective of creation is emphasized at the expense of the experience of Deuteronomy 5. Hence, the kinds of conflicts I think we are seeing re: La Sierra and the teaching of science.

If truth is evasive than God is not the God that I know. You liberals serve a God of confusion and not of clarity. Saying the sabbath will stand without six-literal days of creation may be true, but Christianity will not stand without six-literal of creation. To say that God was only, as the author says, a craftsman and not the creator rips at the heart of the sovereignty of God. Maybe not the Sabbath, but true Remnant Christianity will certainly fall.

All of you examining the literary significance of poetry and using all your academics to tear apart our word will find it empty as every scholar has. All of you are "ever learning, but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth"

David

David

Poke, prod, provoke, but please don't slander! Your use of the word "you" certainly doesn't recommend your "God" to anyone. The God of Scripture tells us: "All have sinned and come short of the Glory of God." There is a parable about a self-righteous Jew and a self stricken tax collector-read it sometime--soon. Tom

Tom,

How right you are! Regardless of one's position, when it begins with "you people" it is instantly seen as a put-down, and that is how it is intended. It closes the door to further conversation.

Regarding the Sabbath, which is the primary theme of this essay, for any theology student to be uninformed of the three different versions of the Ten Commandments: Ex. 20, Ex. 34, and Deut. 5, is a sad state of SDA education! One questions whether the majority of their education was centered on the Torah (for good Jewish rabbis) or for Christians. Christians do not, nor should not base their doctrines on the Torah, but on the NT, where, after all, Christianity began.

At the same time, SDAs ignore many, if not most of the hundreds of other commands given at the same time as the Ten, and by the same God. A few are selected from them to be timeless and necessary today, while most are considered obsolete and no longer valid.

Yet, in the NT, it was Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, who radically changed the Jewish beliefs for new Gentile Christians; something almost totally ignored by Adventism. While proclaiming Jesus Christ and his resurrection, they have gone back to Judaism to formulate many of their beliefs. It was Paul, who couldn't have been more clear, who said that all days were to be considered alike, and that none were to be valued over the other. This was in an effort to win the Gentiles, as before observing the Sabbath and other Jewish practices, circumcision was the first imperative; effectively keeping the Jews as a separate and chosen people, as God had originally intended in the OT.

The main doctrines of Christianity: The Virgin Birth, The Trinity,
and the dual nature of Jesus was never a Christian doctrine by the NT writers, but voted by a church council in the fourth century. During that same century, the first day of the week was made a "free day" from work, by the first Christian emperor. It is ironic that Adventists adopt most of these church decisions, but reject the same decision on Sunday rest day. History has many records of both the late first century and early second century of Christian celebration by meeting on the first day of the week. By the end of the fourth century, the Jews were the only recognized group who were observing Sabbath. Evidently, Adventism relied on the OT and Judaism to incorporate the seventh day into their doctrines. In so doing, the creation story of God resting on that day (not one command for humans to worship) was adopted, while ignoring the Deut. 5 reason as deliverance from Egypt as slaves. Not exactly a transparent exegesis of Scripture.

David Salem wrote;

--If truth is evasive than God is not the God that I know. You liberals serve a God of confusion and not of clarity. Saying the sabbath will stand without six-literal days of creation may be true, but Christianity will not stand without six-literal of creation. To say that God was only, as the author says, a craftsman and not the creator rips at the heart of the sovereignty of God. Maybe not the Sabbath, but true Remnant Christianity will certainly fall.
--

Why is there this constant misrepresentation the if one does not believe in 6 literal days of creation they don't believe in a Creator. I don't think any of the so called liberal Christians have said. It is rather like the miracle of birth. We all know it is not an act of God that a child is born, it is the result of natural processes which owe their beginning to God.

The question is not is God the Creator but what methods may He have used to create. So please stop telling theistic evolutionists that we don't believe in a Creator. That is why we use the term Theistic after all. It only makes you look silly when you ignore it because then it looks like you don't care enough to tell the truth about what other people believe in your endeavor to persuade.

Ron

Elaine, The absurdity of your posts never cease to amaze me. Why not, at least, give credit to the authors who have placed such erroneous ideas in your mind. Then you might be held responsible for parroting rather than initiating such falsehoods.

Numerous passages in the NT deal with the birth of Christ and his nature. What do you think the recounting of Mary's pregnancy was all about? Joseph discovering her pregnant, wanting to put her away, and then an angel informing him of the nature of the child. She would become pregnant through the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit.

The numerous references to his humanity are well known by even a casual reader of the Bible. Romans, Hebrews, Philippians, John, all have references to the human nature and divine nature of Christ. To say that the virgin birth or dual nature of Jesus was not a NT doctrine is absurd, on its face.

You seem to favor the drive by approach to disseminating your ideas so you can't or won't be held accountable. Just throw some mud on a wall and see what sticks, eh? Hardly the way to go.

As for the trinity, that's another matter.

Hanzen7
I experience your response to Elaine as falling short of the mutually respectful dialogue we are trying to foster on this site.
Dave

Jared,

You said: I took note of the fact that individuals coalescing around the “Educate Truth” banner have thus far neglected the most fundamental task--qualifying what they mean by “truth.”

Is this not completely tautological? What does it even mean to qualify truth? How can you qualify the qualification of truth without truth? How can you qualify the qualification of the qualification of truth without truth..... Does the onion have a center?

Do you really think that the religious view of a six day creation is falsifiable? Do you really think we are at the point of needed to construct a different theology?

In part one, you made the challenge that we synthesize two disparate stories. You paint the picture as if SDAs are blasé about about truth. But then in this part two, you make the challenge that us SDAs are too stringent about certain held truths. Your part one kind of nullifies your final conclusion of your part two!

Unless of course, you are saying that part one is how we should be again, if you think we have fallen into a kind of way of thinking that is no longer able to rationalize, or attain deeper truths.

You portray a sort of inconsistency there - may be some truth to that, I am not sure - of course we are not perfect, so we can't expect our church organization to be perfect either. But, then you latch onto something that you can see as a core value to the church - the Sabbath, and then you do the same thing that you criticize the church of in your part one, and you go and synthesize a way to maintain it.

Which way you are heading? You sort of attack both ways of thinking, while using one of those ways yourself!

I pray that our church will strive for truth - and I appreciate all attempts towards honest searching for truth. And I understand your desire to deconstruct and understand, but I do get a feeling (perhaps it is my biased prejudice viewpoint) that you are demeaning a position to make a straw-man point? Perhaps I have failed to understand your point, and that for me to understand, I may have required you to qualify further your point with respect to the context of the theological landscape.

The foundational requirement of creation for most believers is not because of the Sabbath. This is back to front. One of the important things of the Sabbath is to remember creation.

To suggest that the Sabbath is the true heart of this debate, that losing the Sabbath is the true threat of evolution to Christianity, is to undermine the significance of creation in the fall theology in relation to salvation and what Christ means to people.

As an SDA, my concern about creation is not about the Sabbath. It is about the fall. If evolution was God's original creation, and the fall was not really part of the original creation, then resurrection makes no sense to me. Resurrection into more of evolution, no thanks!

davidrlarson,

Certainly, Elaine understands her points are provocative?

Elaine,
Is this debate about the establishment of the Sabbath, or of creation? I think the creation debate shouldn't be about maintaining the Sabbath. This arguments seems back to front to me.

Resurrection into more of evolution, no thanks!

I agree

I look forward to a new Earth, where I won't have to deal with my sickness and death.

However, I do not conclude from this that there will be no death at all of any self-reproducing organism.

Exactly how God will achieve this, I leave in His capable hands.

/Bevin

"I experience your response to Elaine as falling short of the mutually respectful dialogue we are trying to foster on this site."

David, I don't respect the viewpoint of an atheist or enemy of the Bible. Actually, I have no respect fof those that foster and allow direct attacks on Jesus or his Word, either. Is that the price one must pay to be part of the Spectrum "family"?

There should be accountability in a community of faith, which Spectrum obviously is not. It is a very good example of a group of people, some of whom have been significantly damaged by bad religion.

Today I was reading the early chapters of John, particularly the account of the paralytic who Jesus healed. The Jewish leaders had been made insane by their religion. They first criticized the recipient of God's grace for carrying his mat. Then they persecuted and decided to kill Jesus because he healed a man on the Sabbath and called God his father.

The group with whom I was studying all agreed that the behavior of the Jewish leaders was insane. And they could also understand that their religion is what made them that way.

To say that those who express sentiments and beliefs like Elaine's are insane might not be thought of as fostering mutual respect, but it would certainly be an accurate statement. Disrepect and disregard for what other people hold as sacred doesn't foster mutual respect either, yet Spectrum issues lots of passes for that kind of behavior.

A casual reading of the NT would show that the statements in question reveal an extreme ignorance of the substance of the NT, so we are not talking about breaking any new ground, just sowing seeds of skepticism, infidelity, and doubt. If you think that's what Spectrum is about, think on. I would expect better from you.

Jared,

Deuteronomy is a recitation of the commandments by Moses to the people, and is not the exact form in which God spoke the commandments to the people originally in Exodus 20.

Moses addition to the 4th commandment in no way changes the "the rationale, the philosophical, theological and political underpinnings." Their deliverance from Egypt constituted an additional reason why they should reverence Sabbath. The name of the book implies, it is a recapitulation of the various laws transmitted to them at Sinai.

I'm not entirely clear what your point was with contrasting the two "versions" of the ten commandments.

Also, you still didn't make it clear what rationale we have for keeping the Sabbath if the days were not literal. The commandment is very clear as to why the Sabbath exists, this is also reaffirmed in Hebrews 4. So if the six day creation didn't happen, why did God bless the seventh day?

Shane

"Those who trust in their intelligence he (Satan) will make believe that they can correct the Scriptures. You are going to meet this infidelity in high places."

Does "high places" include colleges and SpectrumLand?

Interesting book for new Adventists . . . The Time of the End by James L. Hayward, Sr.

It is probably too low-brow reading for most Spectrumites, but very interesting indeed.

Jody ;)

PS: Hey, hey new Adventists. Get this book and watch our leader's statements unfold right before your very eyes. New week, new adventure . . .

Dear dear,

Charming how now we're carrying on about the lsu school being attacked by the church's right wing we're largely understanding and can have a open conversation unlike when in the last issue or one before there was the article about the gay student from the same school, we were largely expressing the theory of the person in question then was *oh he wants to live in sin and everyone be ok with it* hopefully in at least some of the younger readers lifetimes we can exhibit some understanding when there are future articles about legitimacy of gay marriage, spirituality of gay persons and the like,

Eli

Bevin,

Thanks for your answer. I understand you saying that the fall is not necessarily required in order to believe in some sort of resurrection. But, I don't see any need to discard that belief.

It is not only about resurrection, it also goes towards an explanation of sins origins in humanity, the cornerstone of a major theodicy.

Resurrection requires phenomena and mechanisms beyond our current scientific knowledge. At this point, you are happy to say: "Exactly how God will achieve this, I leave in His capable hands."

I don't understand why you can't say the same about creation?

I have posed a model that allows for the fall, and in that model sin provides for an adequate explanation for the appearance of evolution.

Before you react again, with the 'appearance' of evolution meaning that is what God wants us to think, (otherwise he is lying to us)! But in the model that I posed, it is sin that causes us to see evolution, rather than God. Therefore, it is not God deceiving us!

sorry about my mistake in my old post i said the student was LSU it is actually PUC

Eli

Chris,

Several comments mentioned that without a 7-day literal creation the Sabbath would no longer be valid, which is why I mentioned the Sabbath. While it was not the major theme of the essay, it certainly surfaced by the postings.
'
It is a valid question, is it not? If Creation was indeterminate in time, what would happen to the pillar on which the Sabbath rests?

Elaine,

Yes of course. My point was to say that establishment of the Sabbath, while I agree it is involved, should not be the central reason for worrying about losing creation doctrine.

And just like the article raised some valid points, I still think it is worthwhile putting it into perspective of the creation debate. Because the creation debate was the springboard for this topic.

I accept that there may be ways to maintain a Sabbath doctrine. It may be interesting for discussion, but I think we need to be careful about giving the impression that it is necessary to do this.

Jared,

I think you had left SWAU before taking Old Testament from Dr. Willis, but I distinctly remember him discussing the differences between Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. I agree that Deut. 5 provides an additional rationale for the Sabbath. However, as Shane pointed out, Deut. 5 records Moses' summary of the commandments while Exod. 20 quotes God directly. So, we should consider Ex. as a more authoritative account than the Deut. version.

"I experience your response to Elaine as falling short of the mutually respectful dialogue we are trying to foster on this site."

David, you and I cooperated in doing something together to benefit Luke Ford, which he appreciated. How about we cooperate together here and see if we, as well as others, can benefit.

Suppose I gather together a collection of typical statements Elaine has made about the Bible and Christian faith. We will then submit them to an impartial board.

I suggest Donna Haerich, Pat Travis, Chris Plewright, Herold Weiss, Herb Douglas, and Frank.

We will have them evaluate the statements for factual accuracy and redemptive merit.

In case of a tie, we will continue as before and I will try to be more careful so that you may have a more pleasant experience.

If the majority decides that her statements are factually incorrect, calculated to inspire doubt rather than faith in Jesus and his word, and with no noticeable redemptive potential, Elaine will be banished to posting on the Atomorrow site, for at least 3 months. If she demonstrates contrition and a new perspective at the end of three months she may return to Spectrum.

If her statements are determined to be factually correct, have redemptive merit, and appear to be designed to inspire faith in the inspiration of Scripture, then I will voluntarily withdraw from the Spectrum community for a period of 6 months, at least.

If you agree, I ask that you immediately lock her editing capability so that she can not santize the threads of the most blasphemous and outrageous statements she has made.

Deal?

Hansen7

A fair and balance review would have to include a similar review of your posts.

Elaine's posts consist of her opinion on the issues. Yours consist of your opinion of the persom. We are all adults able to read and reason and to make our own conclusions. We are not all civil--it is the civility issue that is at play, sir: not the theological position of the blogger. I don't often agree with Elaine, but I do enjoy her. I wish I could say the same for your posts. Seldom do they help the orthodoxy of the SDA church, less frequently are they civil, let alone winsome. You should come at the issue with a pen and not at the antagonist with a sword.

Your power should be in your arguments not in your vitriol. Your passion exceeds your persuasion. Tom

Never thought I’d see my name in connection with the names on the list above. You might want to withdraw it. I find Elaine’s posts to be historically and factually accurate most of the time. Her conclusions from these facts I would probably frame in slightly different ways, but by in large what she says is right on.

What Elaine shares with this group is information that is normally not available to students in our closed educational system. As she studied on her own and grew in knowledge and experience she has become aware that there is a body of knowledge about the bible and history that needs to be dealt with honestly and openly.

I have long promoted the idea that we need to make available to our young people information about the literary nature of the Bible and the history of the Christian church so that they can hear it in a context that frames it in a fashion that allows them to maintain faith and yet not deny their intellectual integrity.

Most Adventists would bristle at the idea that our indoctrination methods are hypocritical, closed minded and biased. Yet we have too few giants of faith among our number who can take on honest seekers of truth. And the brightest and best of our young people continue to leave or exist on the margins.

Scott wrote:

==
Jared,

I think you had left SWAU before taking Old Testament from Dr. Willis, but I distinctly remember him discussing the differences between Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. I agree that Deut. 5 provides an additional rationale for the Sabbath. However, as Shane pointed out, Deut. 5 records Moses' summary of the commandments while Exod. 20 quotes God directly. So, we should consider Ex. as a more authoritative account than the Deut. version.

--

No that is incorrect. the Deut 5 version is the version that was written on the tables of stone. At least if you believe the story the way it is written.

(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.

You will notice nothing about the version in Ex.20 about it being written on stone, that is found in the Deut 5 version however. So simple logic would indicate that what was actually written on stone would be the Duet 5 version.

Ron

Donna

Isn't interesting that so many ancient cultures had a Eden story and a flood story? I understand that even some mountain people of New Guinea have an Eden story and a flood story. It is also interesting that Abraham came out of the land of Ur.

It is also interesting that Dr. Thiele did a massive study of the chronology of the Kings--one would imagine that earlier chronologies would be just as confused with overlaps, and missing links.

rc makes an excellent point on the two tables of stone--it certainly squares with Jesus' remarks on the Sabbath being made for man.

It becomes clearer and clearer that the bottom-line is not time but by whom is our source of life and salvation.

Without question that was the burden of Paul. Tom

Tom,

One of these days we will get together and share stories. I have benefited from sitting at the feet of the same teachers you have studied from, including Heppenstall, Provansha, Hubach and Maxwell.

The idea isn't that many ancient cultures had a flood and creation myths, (I use this word in its literary sense) the importance lies in how the Hebrew stories are told - how the Hebrew god differed from the gods portrayed in the other stories.

Genesis is a story of beginnings, how God relates to human kind - it is not history or science. The two accounts in Genesis have much to tell and we limit their ability to speak when we see them only as literal accounts.

This is what needs to be conveyed to SDA young people - before they are exposed to this information outside the church and realize that they have been kept in the dark about their own religious heritage.

Donna

i agree with your view on the myths. I also share your regard for "our" teachers. Tom

Ron wrote:

No that is incorrect. the Deut 5 version is the version that was written on the tables of stone. At least if you believe the story the way it is written.

<snip>

You will notice nothing about the version in Ex.20 about it being written on stone, that is found in the Deut 5 version however. So simple logic would indicate that what was actually written on stone would be the Duet 5 version.

Interesting point. So, we have two different stories here. In Deut., Moses says that he's quoting God, and that that quotation is what was written on the stone tablets. On the other hand, Exodus claims to directly quote God Himself.

So, how does one understand this? I haven't studied this in detail, but it seems to me that in the absence of strong arguments to the contrary the Exodus account should be preferred as the original wording. That's because one is the author's quotation, while the other is the author's quotation of a quotation. It's quite conceivable that Moses inaccurately remembered the commandment, or--more likely--inserted a bit of commentary (his own, or God's).

It's also conceivable that God expressed the commandment in different forms at different times, and that those different forms got recorded. After all, the thrust of the commandment isn't substantially different; only the rationale is changed. And one would hardly expect that there would only be a single reason for God to give a particular commandment.

Scott (and Shane if you're still following along):

There are a few problems with the discussion of which version of a Scriptural story should be preferrred or prioritized.

1. Scripture itself does not offer any suggestion that one should be prioritized over another.

2. Any attempt to demonstrate that one story is preferential might be dismissed as "human reasoning" by those who are apt to make such dismissals (though I generally do not).

3. Just as both versions of creation with their divergent accounts of God's creative acts are scriptural, so too both versions of the 10 Commandments are scriptural, which most people take to mean "the inspired word of God."

4. Which one should be prioritized is not the point.

The point I sought to make in this article is that Scripture is very aware of numerous rationales for Sabbath keeping. The reason for pointing this out is that some (I would say misinformed) readers of Scripture suggest that without a recent, literal six-day creation, the doctrine of the Sabbath is obliterated. I simply sought to demonstrate that such a view is unbiblical. Even if (as I said above) a literal six-day creation were proven to be utterly untenable, we Sabbatarians would still have numerous legitimate reasons to continue being Sabbatarian (Leviticus 5 being a prime example).

Again, the doctrine of the Sabbath does not rise and fall with a literal six-day creation. Any argument to the contrary is unbiblical.

The real question at the heart of all of this is:
Can the accounts in Scripture be instructive for faith and practice even if it were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the stories are not literally factual, or do they only have value for faith and practice only if they are literally accurate accounts of what actually happened?

I'm sure that very compelling arguments could be made both ways.

The topic of this conversation has begun to enter into deep territory, not often discussed, but one that should be: How do we use the Bible, and how do we attempt to correlate the different versions of the same event?

It would appear that it is almost impossible not to arrive at a conclusion that there were several writers and all were combined, giving us slightly different versions, depending on the editors or redactors. A single writer would not have continued to repeat himself, leaving out facts that he considered important, would he?

All of this fits rather neatly into the documentary hypothesis, and while there may be later information on this since its inception, when one reads the many events in the Torah: Creation, the flood, the nephilim (who can identify the "sons of God" who took wives of these ancient people?) we should be exceedingly careful in assuming we can explain all that was both told and later written of these early days. "Fools rush in...."

To maintain certitude in the face of such improbabilities, should cause pause and humility.

Jared,

I'll agree that there are various reasons for keeping the Sabbath, but the Bible is explicit that the reason for the sanctity of the seventh day of the week is the six day creation.

"God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: BECAUSE that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made." Genesis 2:3

"FOR in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: WHEREFORE the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." Exodus 20:11

"It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed." Exodus 31:17

"For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works." Hebrews 4:4

On what bases to do you claim this is not biblical? Also, if the creation week is not literal, then why did God bless the seventh day and sanctify it? You didn't answer that question.

I submit to you that if God, in all his power, did not direct the historicity of Genesis when it was being recored, then what reason can we have for thinking anything related to faith is valid too? You're claim is that some things aren't true, at least factually, in the Bible, but that matters of faith are more reliable. How can we trust a book that can't even get the facts right, and we're supposed to trust what it says about salvation? Is that what you're implying? Is that even rational?

Jared, do you deny that God said, through the writers of the Bible, he created the earth in six days?

Scott wrote:

--
So, how does one understand this? I haven't studied this in detail, but it seems to me that in the absence of strong arguments to the contrary the Exodus account should be preferred as the original wording. That's because one is the author's quotation, while the other is the author's quotation of a quotation. It's quite conceivable that Moses inaccurately remembered the commandment, or--more likely--inserted a bit of commentary (his own, or God's).

--

Well I think I gave you a very strong argument. But if that is not convincing enough consider history. You are most familar with the Exodus 20 list of the 10c why do you think that is? I would submit it is because of the Sabbatarian influence of Puritan religion. Sabbatarians were people who said you had to observe the Sabbath in a very rigorous fashion. No swimming or playing etc. Those were Sabbatarian rules when the Sabbath was Sunday. So they were arguing against Luther who said look you were not in Egypt and delivered from Slavery (which is how Exodus 20 begins and the reason given in Deut. 5 10c for Sabbath) So the sabbatarians were counter the argument that the 10c are not for Gentiles. So they did not want to use the Deut. 5 version and with only a little editing by not starting the 10c at the start of Ex. 20 it could seem that the 10c could refer to everyone.

Adventists then came along, if you read the sabbatarian literature from just a little before the Adventist and 1844 disappointment you see the same arguments that Adventists use later. The Adventists however said we agree with you as sabbatarians you simply have the wrong day, it should be the Jewish Sabbath Saturday.

The point of all this is there is a history as to why a certain list of the 10c is used. And it really has nothing to do with what the Bible says were written on the stones. We are the subject of the traditions that preceeded us whether good or ill.

Of course the larger issue is still interpretation and what we do when the Bible does not agree with itself. That is really the root of all this, different methods of interpretation. Just because one has a more fundamentalist or traditionalist interpretation does not make that interpretation any more correct however.

Ron

Thanks Ron, for giving us a little background history of the Sabbath. The original settlers of this country were very strict "Sabbatarians" albeit on Sunday. Even kissing one's wife was verboten, and for that bit of foolishness one could be put in stocks. All day Sunday meetings were common and everyone had to attend. Adventists adopted many of these traditions.

How many Adventists know the history of Christianity and how it gradually developed, over many centuries; and is still evolving? Even the Bible writers' understanding of God evolved. Those who declare that God is a loving god conveniently overlook that the early writers of the Bible wrote that God ordered multiple killings, even mass killing of everyone, except 8, in the flood. If the early examples, compared to later do not indicate a gradual evolution of man's perception of God, it is only because the stories have been unread.

Shane,

I am not making any claims about what constitutes truth in the Bible (nor have I at any point said that one part of the Bible or another is not true). I have pointed out that there are very clear, undeniable differences in the creation accounts in Genesis.

I have also noted that there are valid biblical bases for keeping Sabbath apart from the necessity of a literal six-day creation.

I have pointed out that the two accounts of Genesis create the need to qualify what one means by saying "Bible truth." That I leave up to you since you seem interested in ensuring that people "educate truth."

I have consistently said "if" a literal six-day creation were definitely proven untenable...The subjunctive (if it were) is very different from the declarative (it is). I would expect that if you are going to characterize my statements in any way, you would take note of what I am saying and what I am not saying.

One, more or less predictable, response from those on the list so far.

"we Sabbatarians would still have numerous legitimate reasons to continue being Sabbatarian (Leviticus 5 being a prime example).

Hmmm. Perhaps you can exegete Lev. 5 illustrating that there is good reason there for being Sabbatarians.

Even if it were, do we get our doctrines from the Torah? If so, why do we continue to ignore the dozens of commands from God found therein? Do Christians return to Moses for their commands, or to the Christian apostles as recorded in the NT, and especially the Pauline epistles for our instruction in righteousness? They are not always compatible; except for those who are Jews. It was for the Gentile Christians that Jewish laws were no longer applicable but we are now all sons of God and under the law "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." But, we are biting and devouring one another (Gal. 4:14-15).

Jared:

You still have not answered my questions:

You said: "Again, the doctrine of the Sabbath does not rise and fall with a literal six-day creation. Any argument to the contrary is unbiblical."

1. If the creation week is not literal, then why did God bless the seventh day and sanctify it?

2. How can we trust a book that can't even get the facts right, and trust what it says about salvation?

3. Do you deny that God said, through the writers of the Bible, he created the earth in six days?

Once again, there are lots of reasons to keep the Sabbath, but there is only one foundational reason from which all others stem. You did not address the texts that state that foundation.

Forgive me if I've mischaracterized what you have said, it was not intended. However, I don't think you make your position very clear. You ask plenty of questions and posit some ideas, but where do you stand? aside from the fact you think the "two accounts" are not compatible, but exclusive of each other.

It seems to me most of the argument here would be redundant if we had a Koranic view of our Scriptures.
OK, that's just me being cynical, but, really, an authentic presentation of the inclusiveness of our beliefs ought to be a little more sensitive to pictorials that cause offence to others.
In my browser on this web-page there's a clickable graphic for 'Evony, Save your lover, Play now my lord' that redirects to a website displaying a young woman with even more skin exposed.
'Save your lover' looks like all those spam messages that land in my mailbox.

Hansen
No deal. Thanks for putting me in touch with LF. I've enjoyed getting to know him! All the best!
Dave

David, The article on the scientific study of Judaism recently posted on Luke's site is relevant to those interested in different approaches to Scripture. I can't attest to its accuracy but it appears to be well done.

Your comments/observations are duly noted. Thanks for declining what would have been an onerous task.

http://lukeford.net/blog/?p=9150

Jared:

The problem with the Deuteronomy rationale for keeping the Sabbath is that it is Hewbrew-specific. The one in Exodous is universal. If the question is why should the gentile David Read keep the Sabbath, the answer must be, "because God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh day and hallowed it." If the answer is, "because you used to be slave in Egypt and God brought you out," it doesn't apply to me, because I'm not the descendant of someone who was a slave in Egypt. I am a descendant of Adam, however, so the six-day creation rationale obviously applies to me. Paul's warning against Judaizers is sufficient to relieve me of obligations laid upon the Jews just because they were Jews.

Life is a perception!.

Life is an experience to be lived.

Truth, it has been said "will withstand any investigation".

I believe White said investigate, investigate ,investigate or was it instigate?.

The joy is in the journey. Life is a journey.

Did God not promise us that he would CONVINCE ( forensic word was CONVICT ) the world of sin and of righeousness?

Did he NOT give us a brain with which to think and to do and does HE not expect us to use it?

What ever happened to "Present Truth"?

I remember White saying that when "Christ was here he was saddened by the slowness of their comprehnesion" speaking of his disciples. WOW he must really be sad now?

Didn't he say in In john 16: 25-27 that he had been speaking "figuratively" but now he wanteed to speak plainly to them.

In John 15:15 did he not say that friends were those who "Listened' to his voice? To whom he could speak plainly. "I no longer call you servants because a servant doesn't know his masters business. Instead I have called you friends , for everything my father has told me I have made known to you!

Didn't he in Eph 1:17 say 'I keep asking that the God of our lord Jesus Christ, the glorius father, may give you the spirit of wisdom and revelation that you may know him better?

Isn't it time to move on in a RELATIONSHIP with HIM that will make us free.

Isn't HE able to do all he has said he would do.

I beleive somewhere in the old testament, perhaps it was Solomon or maybe Jeremiah, possibly Isaiah, who said with all thy getting get wisdom get knowlege?

Somewhere in the new if I remember correctly it is said to GROW up and give up those childish ways and to give up the milk of the word that led to slavation and to move on to MATURITY ( Perfection perhaps).

And then in Ephesians 4:29 again HE said "Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs ---------.

Wow freedom to discus w/o antagonism is great. The truth will make you free. I love my FREEDOM to question very God himself because he is my friend and he is able to answer all my QUESTIONINGS! BLESSED assurance no fear of death or loss of acceptance.

Shane,

I'm not really interested in playing a game of who can back whom into a corner. Nevertheless, I will answer your questions if you would like to answer these:

1. Did God create creatures by speaking or from the dust of the ground?

2. How do you know?

3. Who wrote the creation narrative(s)? A priestly writer? A "Yahwist" author? Moses? Someone else?

4. How do you know?

Saying that the six-day creation narrative is foundational for Sabbath is true for some passages including Exodus 20's version of the 10 Commandments. I have no problem conceding that fact. However, the six day creation is not foundational for all of Scripture's discourse on Sabbath keeping. Deuteronomy's Commandment shows no awareness whatsoever of creation, six-day or otherwise. In that story, the entire basis for Sabbath keeping is the Exodus.

Again, I am not saying that creation is not a basis of Sabbath. I am fully aware of the texts you cite. I am also aware that even if those texts were not there, and even if a six-day creation were proven utterly impossible (I have nowhere said that it is, only "if that ever were to happen"), there is still a scriptural basis for Sabbath keeping every bit as compelling as creation.

We've had fun rehashing these points numerous times. I think we're probably getting a little redundant now, right? If there is something new to add, I'm glad to discuss further. However, I am not really interested in continuing to rehash the same arguments ad infinitum.

David,

The only thing I would say in response to your argument is that if you want to trace your lineage back to Adam, I'm afraid that the only way to get there is through the Israelites who came out of Egypt. At least according to the Bible's genealogies.

David Read wrote:

--
The problem with the Deuteronomy rationale for keeping the Sabbath is that it is Hewbrew-specific. The one in Exodous is universal. If the question is why should the gentile David Read keep the Sabbath, the answer must be, "because God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh day and hallowed it." If the answer is, "because you used to be slave in Egypt and God brought you out," it doesn't apply to me, because I'm not the descendant of someone who was a slave in Egypt. I am a descendant of Adam, however, so the six-day creation rationale obviously applies to me. Paul's warning against Judaizers is sufficient to relieve me of obligations laid upon the Jews just because they were Jews.

--

This is what I referred to earlier with the Sabbatarians being able to edit out the Hebrew specific part of Exodus 20 which is why it is the predominatly used 10 commandment version. Their thinking is just as David Read expressed it above. They simply don't begin the 10c until verse 3 so they don't have to admit to who it is directed toward in verse 2:

Exodus 20:1 And God spoke all these words: 2 "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 3 "You shall have no other gods before me. 4 " NIV

Ron

Jared
"The only thing I would say in response to your argument is that if you want to trace your lineage back to Adam, I'm afraid that the only way to get there is through the Israelites who came out of Egypt. At least according to the Bible's genealogies."

I generally like your thinking but I am not sure I agree with the above statement--correct me if I am wrong but unless you are of Jewish descent through Abraham/Isaac/Jacob, you cannot claim to be a descendant of the Israelites but are still a descendant of Adam using the Biblical lineage. Even later than Adam, Noah had three sons before the flood and undoubtedly more later, but only one was responsible for Abraham's lineage.

Jared,

I'm not trying to back you into a corner. It's just difficult to discuss this with you when I don't know where you're coming from. I'm surprised you insist on avoiding the questions. One or two of the questions I've asked you three times already, and now you're wanting me to answer your questions first. I'm sorry Jared, but you're not being very candid with me. Why are you doing this?

I'll answer your questions, but I don't think this is fair play.

1. I see no reason why he couldn't speak the animals into existence, using the dust of the ground for material. It seems from the account of the Bible that God created the animals through speech, using dirt.

2. How do I know this? Genesis 1:24 begins with "God said," which is indicative that when he spoke something happened. Genesis 2:19 says that God made the animals from the dust of the ground. Since it doesn't give the mode by which they were created, only what they were created out of, we can't say this contradicts 1:24.

You're going to have to tell me what this has to do with our discussion.

3. It could have been Moses. While none of the evidence is conclusive, I think it strongly indicates that it was Moses. At this point I'm not sure what difference it would make if it was discovered conclusively that Genesis was written by someone else.

4. There is some internal evidence from the Bible that indicates Genesis might be written by Moses. We also have tradition, but we really don't know for an absolute certain from any evidence that we have. However, if you believe that "The Great Controversy" was a divinely inspired book by God, then you can have the added weight that Moses was the author of Genesis. On page v she says that Moses was the historian of creation and the law.

So I've answered your questions. Now, will you please answer my questions:

1. If the creation week is not literal, then why did God bless the seventh day and sanctify it?

2. How can we trust a book that can't even get the facts right, and trust what it says about salvation?

3. Do you deny that God said, through the writers of the Bible, he created the earth in six days?

We should not forget that while Abraham's ancestry according to the Bible, extends back to Adam, that is only one lineage. There were, at the time of Abraham thousands, possibly millions of people in in other parts of the Middle East. After all where did the Egyptians originate? The Canaanites? There were people living in all the Mediterranean and North African countries who were not Jews. Jews were a very small minority of the population.

We should humbly admit that the Bible's genealogies cannot be deemed accurate for every generation, or for the ages of the patriarchs. "Sons" often meant a grandson or further down. Just as the much later genealogies of Jesus are inaccurate, we discredit ourselves by presuming that the Bible was written when accuracy was valued as we do today. It was an oral history, amended, edited, and retold thousands of years before putting to writing. All preliterate societies had their own particular origin stories and to expect factual accuracy was never valued at the time these originated; i.e., did Solomon's palace exist exactly as described? Where is the archeological evidence? The Hebrews, just as their contemporaries, glorified their heroes by making them much larger than life. After all man, not God, wrote the Bible as they perceived life at that time.

Donavan and Elaine,

You're both right. I was writing faster than I was thinking. That'll teach me.

---------------------------
Shane,

In answer:

1. Does God bless only things that are literal and strictly factual? Were the people who are blessed in Daniel 12:12 blessed because they endure 1,335 literal days? Are those who are blessed in Revelation 19:9 blessed because they attend a literal marriage supper of a literal lamb? Or those in Revelation 22:14 blessed for literally washing literal robes?

2. Can something be true even when not literally factual? Is there truth in Mark Twain's stories or Emily Dickinson's poetry?

3. Is there any textual evidence in Genesis that God claims authorship via a human penman?

It is interesting that among the few things in the entire Bible that the Bible writers claimed were written by God and not by themselves under inspiration were the ten commandments. These, it is claimed, were written by God's own finger, and these contain the Sabbath commandment with the claim of a six-day creation. It may be claimed, and has been, that Genesis 1 and 2 are "mytho-poetic," but what of the Fourth Commandment, written by God's own finger? Why is God endorsing the factual claims of Genesis 1 if they are only myth? Or did God not really write the 10 Commandments with His own hand? Or is God trapped inside a pre-scientific, 19th Century worldview? Or is God just a big 'ol practical joker?

So I wonder what it says about divine authorship that there are two contrasting versions of the 10 Commandments attributed to God. Particularly the fact that there are two separate versions of the Sabbath command. Should one chalk it up to the divine agency or the human agency...?

I feel like we've been here already.

Jared:

I'm very surprised that instead of answering my questions directly, you replied with questions. Why aren't you giving me a direct response?

The Bible says the Sabbath "is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed. (Exodus 31:17). If God did make the heaven and the earth in six days, why did he bless the seventh? You still have not explained that. The Bible clearly says that he blessed and sanctified it because he had created in six days. So, please answer the question:

1. If God did not create the heavens and the earth in six days, then why did God bless the seventh day and sanctify it?

The Bible says "all Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" (1 Tim. 3:16, 17). The Bible also says that God does not lie (Titus 1:2). The Bible also says that Moses was a prophet (Deu. 34:10; Acts 3:22, 7:37). With these things in mind, I ask my second question again:

2. How can we trust a book that can't even get the facts right, and trust what it says about salvation?

God said that he made the heavens and the earth in six days (Ex. 31:17). Once again, God cannot lie. So I ask my third question again:

3. Do you deny that God said he created the heavens and earth in six days?

Please answer directly. What reason can you have for being so evasive? Ignoring questions, making me answer questions before you'll answer mine, answering with questions again--what's the meaning in this? Surely you believe one way or another in regard to these questions.

Dear Jared,

I simply cannot understand why we say that if we loose the seven-day creation, the Sabbath also is lost, as if a religious rationale for sabbatizing is the best thing we have. In my opinion, with Genesis one stands or fall the whole biblical faith and religion. Why should I believe in atonement and resurrection, immortality and future life? And why should I even stick to solid moral or ethical principles ?
For me, theistic evolution is more monstruous than atheistic evolution. I live in a former communist country, and darwinism was the prefered sermonizing in our educational system. Theory of evolution was ever a faith menace for me. There are people who can believe that even though the Bible's narrative is somehow mythological (just like the tale about Poor Lazarus) it became a holy parable.
Ths what should I understand from the Bible ? If it is basically a moralizing bedtime story, thanks, I cannot buy. If God did not tell us the truth in Genesis 1 and Exodus 20 (in spite of the cultural frame where it is cast), I think that atheism is more consistent, and the best conclusion is not to serve the evolutionary god, but even to rebel against him.
Evolution (theistic or not) is a cynical theory, no matter how "scientific" it is. Religion, true or false, should not have anything with such exegesis of nature. We should learn better the language in which God has written His natural work, and only then rush to exegesis.
I hope that true believers will be faithful enough to reject the compromising allurements of secular philosophies. And especially Adventists should be vigilent in this point, since they claim that they bear the universal message, "worship Him who CREATED heaven and earth, sea and fountains of water..."

Florin wrote:
--
If God did not tell us the truth in Genesis 1 and Exodus 20...
--

Do you really believe that those things were written by God? Is there no other possibility. When God tells Israel to kill everybody of a nation except the virgin girls does that really represent God's actual words? You really start down a horrible road with the idea that the Bible is dictated by God.

Ron

Shane,

I appreciate the effort. Keep it up.
The questions are the answers. Reread. One of these days you'll see what I'm saying.

That's all.

Jared,

I have asked you the same questions four times. It is clear that you are unwilling to answer them directly. I'm not sure why. You're being very elusive. I have asked you three straight questions, and you have weaseled out of answering them every time I have asked them.

"The questions are the answers. Reread. One of these days you'll see what I'm saying."

Sorry Jared. You haven't said anything substantial. You're hiding behind questions. Your statement above is condescending, whether you meant it or not. This ironic because your the one who is being vague.

What, you can't stand behind your own answers? You leave me to interpret the meaning of your questions, and then if I attempt to discredit the questions with the Bible you'll just attack my misunderstanding of your questions.

What you're doing is deceptive.

Is there anyone else who shares Jared's view who can answer my questions?

Despite the fact that Elaine and I differ drastically in our views of Scripture, I can appreciate that she is honest and straight forward about her beliefs.

The Bible says the Sabbath "is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed. (Exodus 31:17). If God did make the heaven and the earth in six days, why did he bless the seventh? You still have not explained that. The Bible clearly says that he blessed and sanctified it because he had created in six days. So, please answer the question:

1. If God did not create the heavens and the earth in six days, then why did God bless the seventh day and sanctify it?

The Bible says "all Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" (1 Tim. 3:16, 17). The Bible also says that God does not lie (Titus 1:2). The Bible also says that Moses was a prophet (Deu. 34:10; Acts 3:22, 7:37). With these things in mind, I ask my second question again:

2. How can we trust a book that can't even get the facts right, and trust what it says about salvation?

God said that he made the heavens and the earth in six days (Ex. 31:17). Once again, God cannot lie. So I ask my third question again:

3. Do you deny that God said he created the heavens and earth in six days?

(This is the 5th time I've asked these questions with no response.)

Shane wrote:

--
God said that he made the heavens and the earth in six days (Ex. 31:17). Once again, God cannot lie. So I ask my third question again:
3. Do you deny that God said he created the heavens and earth in six days?
--

So now we even have to believe that God created heaven in those six days also. Kind of makes you wonder where He lived before that. But as you say God cannot lie and we must assume that God wrote Ex. 31:17 or at least dictated it.

I know I am not Jared but I feel I certainly can deny it. Just on the concept of the heavens, whether they are the vast stars of the universe or God's main hangout. If it was just a short 10-20 thousand years there would still not even be light traveled here from much of the universe. Unless of course God caused the light to get here faster then by the natural speed of light...but then such a miracle could be identified as a lie of God also. Which would necessitate the question of why God would do that because it would only encourage a disbelieve in God's literal recent 6 day creation.

Perhaps God only meant the atmosphere here on earth as the heavens. Seems that we would have to be taking some liberties with the meaning and interpretations of Scriptures then. But then anyone who seriously considers these things knows that though the 6 day literal creationists don't really believe it is literal, they believe that their interpretation is the literal part not the actual literal story.

That was the topic of my last blog article as well (click the red name below to see it), they don't really take it literal, either the creation story of the flood story, just certain parts.

Ron

Shane

We both know that one of the ways some people try to score a rhetorical point is to identify two and only two possiblities and then try to force others to choose one or the other of them at the pain of being called dishonest, cowardly, or insane.

This has been done so often for thousands of years that many people today easily see what is going on and refuse to play the game.

This should surprise no one, particularly not you and me.

Blessings!

Dave

Ron:

Thank you for being forthright. Now, if you don't think God said said that the earth was created in six days, do you think that that was the authors interjections? Do you believe that particular statement was not an inspired one from God?

I think the definition of the heavens is irrelevant to this discussion. I'd like to stick with the creation of the earth.

So, assuming that statement and others like it are not true, we're left with:

a) the Bible contains human factual error amidst divine revelation, which also begs the question how do we determine what is divine and what is human and are we really capable of determining that.

b) it was not God's intention to pass on facts, but a knowledge of his character, which begs the question, how can his character be known when the facts with which he allegedly interacted with are false.

c) the Bible is not inspired at all by God; it's merely a collection of books written by men who were writing about their perceptions of God.

d) the Bible is myth, loosely based on historical places and characters.

e) the bible is a collection of books written by men as they were moved by the Holy Spirit and that the anything the Bible speaks about is reliable and factual; any divergence between what we have studied and what the Bible says is due to our own misunderstanding of nature.

f) other.

Now, since you've been honest about your views in regard to the creation week, perhaps you could answer the other two questions.

1. If God did not create the earth in six days, then why did God bless the seventh day and sanctify it?

2. How can we trust a book that can't even get the facts right, and trust what it says about salvation or any matters of faith? What makes the Bible trust worthy? Assuming it is.

Shane wrote:

--I think the definition of the heavens is irrelevant to this discussion. I'd like to stick with the creation of the earth.

--
How can the definition of heavens possibly irrelevant? You brought it up as a statement from the Bible to be taken literally. You then list a series of possiblities of how to interpret the Bible, and sum it up with how can we trust a book that can't even get the facts right.

So no it is not irrelevant it is just another of the many areas that the literalists want to avoid so that they can dwell on their pet issues.

You last line asked how can we trust a book. How do you trust any book, does the Bible ask you to trust it or does the writers of the Bible ask you to trust God? Does the Bible claim to be infallible or inerrant? If so where, All scripture is inspired for training in righteousness, it says nothing of it being without error, rather that it supplies us with the things we need to know to lead us to trust God for our salvation.

As for the sancfying of the Sabbath, we are pretty sure that Genesis was written after the Exodus from Egypt so it reflects the teachings that were developed after the Exodus. For instance when Abel offers a sacrifice it is of the fat portion, just like the instructions in Leviticus. So it is likely that the stories are meant to reinforce the teachings that were recently delivered to the children of Israel.

Now even if the setting aside of the seventh day had no other meaning then to the children of Israel it would still serve as a sanctified day even if you believed that the Genesis account was the first anyone heard of a rest day. Of course there is the other school of thought that the sactifing of the seventh day indicated that God's act of creation was done He would not be creating anymore worlds. I am sure there are other ideas out there as well such as the rest of God on the seventh day indicated that everything He created was successful. There is nothing to indicate that it was meant as a rest day for humans untill after the Exodus.

The real meat of the story however is still that there is a God who is the creator and the story describes the world that we see around us today, just as much as it did 4000 years ago. This is our world it is all the world we get and it is filled with trouble, weeds and pain. If you want to believe that those things are the fault of someone eating a forbidden fruit you still can, but that ignores the richness of information that myths can deliver.

Inspiration is not simply God dictating to someone. That is probably one of the biggest problems people have with Bible interpretation, they assume things about the writers and about God that are not all that likely to be true. Though with the multitudes of interpretations of Scripture out there you would think that people would get past that idea of infallible inerrent scriptures fairly quickly...alas that is not the case because someone always seems to think that they have the correct interpretation and if only everyone would follow it then they would see that they have it fiqured out and if you follow what they say you can finally accept their point that the scriptures are infallible and inerrant. Of course they really mean that they have assumed their interpretation is the infallible and inerrant part, but they can always say to the critics that is irrelevant.

Ron

Ron,

The definition of heaven is irrelevant because the Bible doesn't define it exactly, so anything else would be speculative on our part. I have no problem accepting that God made the heavens and the earth in six days. I'm don't want to get off track with what all heaven includes; it could be just our solar system or it could include more. I don't know.

Ron, you indicated the Bible doesn't claim to be infallible or inerrant, yet you say the Bible supplies us with the things we need to know to lead us to trust God for our salvation. I would think that the Bible would have to contain God's will, which is infallible or inerrant, for us to trust him for salvation.

The Bible does make the claim that "all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness" (1 Tim. 3:16). The Bible also says "O Sovereign LORD, you are God! Your words are trustworthy, and you have promised these good things to your servant" (2 Sam. 7:28). We do have to trust God at his word if we're to be saved. God did send Jesus to die for our sins so that all of us could have eternal life. David said in Psalm 62:8 to trust in God at all times. Jesus himself said, "Trust in God; trust also in me" (John 14:1).

I must conclude that God does ask me to trust him, and that scripture is trustworthy because he is the source. If all scripture is inspired by God, then it follows that it is his infallible will. Paul said that the scriptures are holy (Romans 1:2). So when God says in his own voice and writes it in stone with his own finger that he blessed and sanctified the sabbath because he created it in six days, I am compelled to to believe.

Honestly though, I don't think we're going to get very far in this discussion because it appears that we have vastly different presuppositions about the Bible.

Shane wrote:
--
So when God says in his own voice and writes it in stone with his own finger that he blessed and sanctified the sabbath because he created it in six days, I am compelled to to believe.
--

But that is not the version that the Bible says was written in stone! This is why it is so important not to pretend certain things aren't relevant. Because when it comes to interpretation it is relevant. Psalms says God's word is trustworthy. That is not a reverence to the Bible, It is a reference to God being trustworthy.

If you remain with this type of simplistic the Bible expresses God's will then you have a God who is regrets He made mankind:
(Gen 6:6 KJV) And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

Why are you not killing Sabbath breakers, if the Bible reveals the infallible inerrant will of God and God does not change...that is what He commands:

(Exo 35:1-4 NIV) Moses assembled the whole Israelite community and said to them, "These are the things the LORD has commanded you to do: For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death. Do not light a fire in any of your dwellings on the Sabbath day." Moses said to the whole Israelite community, "This is what the LORD has commanded:

There are another 612 commandments also, do you follow them all as the infallible word of God?

when you say; "I would think that the Bible would have to contain God's will, which is infallible or inerrant, for us to trust him for salvation." What does that mean to you, that we should dash the heads of your enemies nfants into rocks or turn the other cheek. If you simply assume that all the writings of the Bible express the infallible inerrant will of God who do you reconcile the angry God with the God of love. The answer is that you interpret the Bible with reason and logic applying principles and experience. Your statements of inerrant and infallible become mere words because you have to define the meaning and the context to the incidents. Do they apply for all time or a specific time. Is the statement made in the Bible God's statement or is it what a writer thought God wants to say. Is the language used literal or symbolic.

I certainly agree that dialog with the simplistic God said it I believe it mentality is never productive. Because those people are not even honest with themselves. They deny the need to understand context and meaning, they don't understand the simple fact of interpretation that goes into any kind of study of the written word. When those people latch onto science it is just as problematic as religion. They have a tradition and that tradition is what they think God said and what they therefore believe.

That is really what this is all about, tradition meets modern thought. If modern thought is not the traditional thought then it has no place in the Adventist church. It is very contrary to the idea of progressive revelation that is seen in the Bible itself where people continually learn more about God and themselves and the world around them.

Ron

Ron,

First, there is only one version of the ten commandments, and that is the one God spoke to the Israelites. This "version" was given first verbally, and then in written form on tables of stone. This occurs in Exodus 24:12:

"The LORD said to Moses, 'Come up to me on the mountain and stay here, and I will give you the tablets of stone, with the law and commands I have written for their instruction.'"

Moses recitation in Deuteronomy 5 is simply that--a recitation. God wrote in stone what he told the Israelites on Mt. Sinai. In Exodus 32:19 Moses comes down from the mountain and breaks the tables of stone after seeing what the Israelites were doing. If things weren't clear about the first set of commandments, Exodus 34:28 states in no uncertain terms:

"Moses was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments."

There can be NO confusion as to how the ten commandments, written on stone with God's finger, read. They were the same as the ones HE spoke, not Moses. There's nothing necessarily wrong with Moses' recitation, but it is not more authoritative then what God spoke, not is it less authoritative. Also, they were written in stone before Moses recited the law to the Israelites.

Ron, really, Genesis 6:6? Admittedly, I can see why we would think God was repenting, but since this doesn't match what we know of God we must dig deeper. What does the phrase "and it repented the LORD" mean? The Hebrew word "nacham" (repented) can also mean to "be moved to pity", "have compassion", "suffer grief." The Bible is very clear that God does not repent because he is not a man (1 Sam. 15:29). This is a wonderful verse that shows the divine grief at man's depraved state, and a touching indication that God did not hate man.

Yes, there a lot of commandments, but do we have good reason to keep them or to not keep them? The Bible is very clear that all the laws pertaining to the handwritten ordinances (Book of the Covenant) were done away with, also all anything that was a shadow of things to come (ceremonial laws which were also in the Book of the Covenant). God gives us very good reason not to keep most of those laws.

The Bible interprets itself, and if we can't understand something God promises us the Holy Spirit to give us understanding.

When I say the Bible is inerrant, I mean that whatever the Bible talks about it is incapable of being wrong. When I say the Bible is infallible, I mean that the Bible is to be accepted as the authoritative, infallible revelation of his will.

From our conversation, I gather that your presuppositions go something like this (I'm just inferring):

(a) the Bible is not fully inspired (i.e., some parts of the Bible are more inspired than others)

(b) the Bible is not fully trustworthy (because of alleged mistakes in some of the Bible’s historical and scientific assertions)

(c) the Bible is not absolutely authoritative in all that it teaches or touches upon (portions allegedly shaped by the personal or cultural prejudices of the writers and their times are uninspired and not binding on us)

(d) there are internal discrepancies, contradictions, or inconsistencies in Scripture; this diversity in Scripture (i.e., pluralism or conflicting theologies in the Bible) is believed to be caused by the Bible’s many human writers.

These would be my presuppositions:

a) The Bible is ultimately the product of one divine mind, the Holy Spirit, thus it is fully inspired of God.

b) The Bible is fully trustworthy in all it's historic and scientific assertions.

c) The Bible is an absolute authority in all that it touches upon.

d) There might have been some mistake in the copyist of in the translators, but there are no errors in the history or science. Any errors from the copyist can be easily fixed by a comparison of the vast number of manuscripts.

So hope you can see that because of our vastly different presuppositions on the Bible, we will interpret it's accounts very differently. In my view any apparent contradictions, inaccuracies, mistakes, or errors that you think you will find in the Bible will be because of your inaccurate perceptions rather than actual mistakes.

“A superficial reading of the Scriptures will yield a superficial understanding of it. Read in such a way, the Bible may appear to be a jumble of stories, sermons, and history. Yet, those open to the illumination of the Spirit of God, those willing to search for the hidden truths with patience and much prayer, discover that the Bible evidences an underlying unity in what it teaches about the principles of salvation." The Great Controversy vi(24)

Shane,

While I largely accept the traditional Adventist view of the Bible, I believe you've taken your argument a bit too far by claiming that the Bible is absolutely inerrant--a position, by the way, that Adventists have traditionally not held.

Here's an example that demonstrates why such a position is untenable: According to Mark 8:28, two demon-possessed men rushed out to meet Jesus. The parallel passage Mark 5:2 says there was one such man. Which is it? The two are mutually contradictory. Granted, this is a minor detail, but it is a discrepancy, which causes problems for the inerrant camp.

You appealed to the original manuscripts. However, textual criticism doesn't necessarily solve these kinds of problems. In fact, all else being equal, variants that result in inconsistencies (or apparent inconsistencies) are usually preferred over variants that remove inconsistencies, because it's easier to explain how a variant would arise that attempts to "fix" the text than that makes the text more difficult.

You wrote: "Any errors from the copyist can be easily fixed by a comparison of the vast number of manuscripts" (emphasis mine). While that's true in a number of cases--perhaps even the majority of cases--the fact that you made this statement suggests that you're not aware of the many difficulties involved in textual criticism. And, it's the most difficult passages that tend to cause the most problems; thus, they're more important for the purposes of this discussion.

I think that many hermeneutical problems go away when we accept that the Bible was written by human authors and that God allowed them to choose their own words and methods of expression, all the while ensuring that His point was made and protecting the author against theological error.

Also Luke.
And when he was come out of the ship, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit,
out. Lu 8:27

Matthew gives a brief account of two demoniacs who were dispossessed on this occasion; but Mark and Luke omit the mention of one (who was perhaps not so remarkable).

Perhaps it was a siamese twin.
The fact is there are any number of plausable explainations that could be made without having to surmise that the bible is contradictory.

Shane wrote:

--
There can be NO confusion as to how the ten commandments, written on stone with God's finger, read. They were the same as the ones HE spoke, not Moses. There's nothing necessarily wrong with Moses' recitation, but it is not more authoritative then what God spoke, not is it less authoritative. Also, they were written in stone before Moses recited the law to the Israelites.
--

If you believe the Bible is inerrant and infallible how can you possible deny what the Bible actually says in Deut 5. Where after reciting the 10c within a couple of sentences it says they were written on stone, not chapters later as in the Exodus version. According to Deut 5 that list of the 10c is spoken by the Lord also.

--(Deu 5:5 NIV) (At that time I stood between the LORD and you to declare to you the word of the LORD, because you were afraid of the fire and did not go up the mountain.) And he said:

(Deu 5:6 NIV) "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

(Deu 5:7 NIV) "You shall have no other gods before me.

(Deu 5:8 NIV) "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.

(Deu 5:9 NIV) You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,

(Deu 5:10 NIV) but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

(Deu 5:11 NIV) "You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.

(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 5:16 NIV) "Honor your father and your mother, as the LORD your God has commanded you, so that you may live long and that it may go well with you in the land the LORD your God is giving you.

(Deu 5:17 NIV) "You shall not murder.

(Deu 5:18 NIV) "You shall not commit adultery.

(Deu 5:19 NIV) "You shall not steal.

(Deu 5:20 NIV) "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.

(Deu 5:21 NIV) "You shall not covet your neighbor's wife. You shall not set your desire on your neighbor's house or land, his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."

(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.

(Deu 5:23 NIV) When you heard the voice out of the darkness, while the mountain was ablaze with fire, all the leading men of your tribes and your elders came to me.

__

I guess this all comes from the mistaken assumption that Genesis and Exodus were written at the very time of the events they portray.

Ron

Michael wrote:

Matthew gives a brief account of two demoniacs who were dispossessed on this occasion; but Mark and Luke omit the mention of one (who was perhaps not so remarkable).

Perhaps it was a siamese twin.
The fact is there are any number of plausable explainations that could be made without having to surmise that the bible is contradictory.

I don't think the Siamese twin explanation is very plausible. You're right, though, that there are a number of plausible explanations. However, for those who insist on absolute inerrancy, the fact remains that 1 ≠ 2, regardless of how unremarkable one of the men may have been.

Michael

If that is your best shot, you need target practise! Tom

It never ceases to be amazing for so many who swear to believe everything in the Bible, yet are not very well informed about either what is in it, or by whom and when it was written. Shouldn't this be a primary requirement of Bible study?

The easy acceptance of everything within its pages, while knowing little of how it was written, edited or compiled is too common for those who proclaim "The Bible and the Bible only."

So, any recent news related to the "witch hunt"? The Educatetruth.com site is pretty slick, but it seems as if commenting is dropping off over there.

Glenn: there are only so many tunes you can play on a 1-string violin.

The latest piece at EducateTruth (yes, the website still exists) is so regressive it almost leaves me speechless. It's essential argument is that (1) secular institutions believe students and professors should be allowed freedom of inquiry in the pursuit of knowledge, and that (2) such an approach to education simply can't be tolerated, because unless a person's access to information is properly restricted by a benevolent dictatorship exercised top-down by Christian elites who know better than everyone else, students are likely to do something stupid, like follow the evidence. And if they do that, they might not continue to believe everything we in the church have told them to believe. They will, gasp, start to think for themselves. In other words, Christian education can't handle the Truth.

This seems to be the final and primary refuge of Christian and religious orthodoxy everywhere in every age. Its self-preservation demands "religious correctness". Ideas, and the people behind them, that are even thought to be subversive of the reigning orthodoxy, must be silenced, just because.

It is also the mindset of totalitarian societies everywhere, in every age, of the political left or right: the truth is already known; the only rationale for "education" is to confirm this already known "truth"; and anything perceived to be subversive of this "truth" must be quashed. At the risk of referencing what's almost become cliche, this is very 1984, "Freedom is Slavery" stuff. It says, we can't take the risks that freedom and knowledge pose to our order and system.

The ultimate question that must be asked of such a worldview is, what sort of spiritual kingdom, what sort of world, does it seek? What would life be like under its auspices? Does it lead to, or result in, greater freedom, or less?

Upon further review, the piece entitled "The Third Freedom" by George Akers at EducateTruth is, if anything, actually worse than I first thought. It refers to Bob Jones University as a "fine, respected Christian institution."

Um. OK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jones_University_v._United_States

EducateTruth, having found itself in a hole of its own making, appears to have taken someone's advice to keep digging.

Ron,

I apologize that my response is much belated. I was out of the country and couldn't respond to everything.

After Moses recited the Ten Commandments to the people in Deuteronomy 5, he ends with this statement:

"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." (verse 22)

God first spoke the commandments to the Israelites in Exodus 20. After he spoke to the people, they complained to Moses and asked him to speak to them instead of God because they feared death. So Moses draws near to God, and God proceeds to give the ordinances, which last until chapter 31 of Exodus. In verse 18 it says:

"When the LORD finished speaking to Moses on Mount Sinai, he gave him the two tablets of the Testimony, the tablets of stone inscribed by the finger of God."

The Deuteronomy account follows the same chronology. I'm confused as to what you're getting at. There is no contradiction between the chronology of the two accounts.

Shane Hilde

Scott Severance:

I think you meant to compare Matthew 8:28-34 with Mark 5:2-20.

Mark 5:2 - When Jesus got out of the boat, a man with an evil spirit came from the tombs to meet him.

Matthew 8:28 - When he arrived at the other side in the region of the Gadarenes,[a] two demon-possessed men coming from the tombs met him. They were so violent that no one could pass that way.

Yes, it does appear we have a problem here on the surface. Now, regarding eyewitness testimony, two testimonies such as the two above does not necessarily mean one is right and the other is wrong. While the fact of the number of demon possessed men differ, the story is still the same. One may have chosen to focus on one particular detail.

You immediately assume that because there is an apparent contradiction in the facts that one of the two's testimony is in error.

Matthew was present when the event occurred, so remembering the detail of how many demon possessed men there were would have been quite easy. Mark, probably got his information from Peter, which means the information was second hand; however, it seems that Mark's account is more detailed and specifically focusses in on one man. Does the fact that he mentions only one man mean there was only one man? I don't think so.

Here's a good illustration:

Let's suppose a family enjoyed the day at the circus, and afterward stopped by grandma's house. The children speak with amazement of a fire-eater who was present, who's name was "Flame". Their mother might make mention of the fact that there were actually two fire-eaters who performed at the circus. Is there a contradiction between what the mother and the children have said? No, they have simply focused on different aspects of the same event, and all were still speaking the truth.

The only way you could say that the accounts absolutely contradict each other is if one of them said there was two and the other said no, there was actually only one, but Mark does not deny that there was two men.

1) I saw John in town.

2) I saw John and Jim in town.

This is not a contradiction. Experience tells that no two people see an event exactly the same. One point impresses one witness; another point impresses another. They may have seen the same thing but they don't report it the same. So apparent contradictory statements may often prove to be not contradictory at all, but rather complimentary. Truthful witness does not need to equal carbon-copy testimony. Witnesses are not deemed unreliable just because their reports differ, to say so is utterly groundless.

So I still stand by my previous statements that the Bible is is fully trustworthy in all it's historic and scientific assertions and an absolute authority in all that it touches upon.

Also, you'll have to show me how this is not the Adventist church has traditionally held. After reading "Seventh-Day Adventists Believe", I fail to see how the churches position differs from mine.

Shane Hilde

For those who are still interested, Jay Gillimore, President of the SDA Michigan Conference, write about the controversy surrounding La Sierra University biology professors teaching evolution as fact.

http://www.educatetruth.com/articles/evolution-in-education-by-jay-gilli...

It's dated August 1, so they must have just posted it today.

Shane Hilde
www.EducateTruth.com

"It is my belief that, by and large, most of our science teachers are creationists, not evolutionists."

This is not something he should have a 'belief' on - it is an important detail that should be measured

"At the church-sponsored Faith and Science conferences of 2002–2004, leading Seventh-day Adventist scientists and theologians, among other points, affirmed the following:

1. We affirm the primacy of Scripture in the Seventh-day Adventist understanding of origins.
2. We affirm the historic Seventh-day Adventist understanding of Genesis 1 that life on earth was created in six literal days and is of recent origin
"

This was a spin put on the F&SC by the conservative admin.
It was not the consensus of the participants

"This is a defining moment in the history of our Church and its institutions of higher learning"

Indeed it is - and this guy is in for a shock when he finds out how many SDA don't back him

/Bevin

Bevin,

I'm inclined to think he is wrong in the number of Adventist teachers that are creationists. If they are the majority it's by a very small percentage, but I have no facts to support that.

However, the world wide church vastly out numbers those who believe in evolution in the church.

Shane Hilde
EducateTruth.com

"the world wide church vastly out numbers those who believe in evolution in the church"

This is most likely true. Should the lowest common denominator edit and dictate the science teaching in SDA schools we might as well let anyone teach science. What is the average educational level of the worldwide membership of Adventists. Why would anyone pay all the time and money to receive a terminal degree in science if the "worldwide church" members are able to dictate what is taught!

Elaine:

interesting that you should bring into question the education of the world church. You're assuming of course that those teachers who have educated themselves in evolutionary theory and believe in it are educated correctly. I would disagree. Also, scientists that have left some of the church's fundamental beliefs should in no way be representing the church. The church believes evolution is wrong, thus it will teach that. This isn't about who is right or wrong about evolution. It's about false representation.

"It's about false representation."

No, it's about false expectation.

When the church decides to tell the science teachers what to teach, we will all know. Until then, the administration, not the members make such decisions. No one demands anyone attend, nor send their children to such schools. It's still a free world.

Here is an interesting excerpt from the www.misda.org (Michigan Conference) statement:

"Then certain independent magazines began to defend the alleged right of Adventist universities to teach evolution. While not surprising, it adds credibility to the concerns that in some places evolution is being taught as the preferred worldview. The rhetoric by these magazines and their supporters toward those who defend the Church’s Genesis position is appalling, as well as revealing. Can one have a high Reformation view of Scripture and simultaneously abandon the Genesis record of creation?"

Elaine:

False expectations? Parents have false expectations that their church should be expected to provide education that is aligned with its beliefs? Their beliefs?

And no, you are mistaken, it's not a free world, especially when it comes to your employer. That goes for just about any organization or business. When you decide to work for someone else, you do not have freedom to do whatever you believe. This is common sense.

Shane Hilde
www.EducateTruth.com

Curt:

My guess is that those two independent magazines are "Spectrum" and "Adventist Today." I hope this encourages LSU to be more open about its curriculum.

Shane Hilde

Hey thanks for the article, Jared.

I have never spent much time considering the Deuteronomy version of the 4th commandment.

It struck me as a powerful illustration of observing the Sabbath not only in light of God's creative power, as highlighted in the Exodus command, but also His recreative power in us when we give our lives to Him and He makes us new creatures.

For as Israel was a slave in Egypt and was brought out by God's mighty hand, so are we slaves to sin until God brings us out by His mighty hand.

Very cool.

Also, because Scripture does not contradict itself or overrule itself, both commands and "rationales" for observing the Sabbath still stand, and so the Exodus command's focus on keeping holy a literal 24-hour seventh day because that is what God blessed and sanctified after 6 literal 24-hour days of creating the world, still stands firm. :-)

Hey, I was one of those teachers before grad school who distinctly remembers talking about both the Exodus and Deuteronomy versions of the Sabbath commandment with you . . . what are those students listening to in class? . . . :-) (seriously though, nice article Jared)
Ken C.

As a life-long SDA who went through our schools from 1st grade through college, I do believe in God's literal creation of the world.

There are though, issues in the creation story that are problematic...or at the very least, require some careful thought.

'The earth was without form and void.' What was here? Did God create a lifeless hunk of rock, perhaps many billions of years ago, and then, 6000 years ago decide to work on it some more? The Bible does not say.

'Let there be light.' What kind of light? All natural light we receive on earth comes from the sun, which was created on day 4. Some would say that it was God's own light (I John 1:5 "God is light"). The Genesis story does not specify...so this can only be speculation.

A 'day' on earth is marked by one revolution of the earth on its own axis...such that we get the 'evening and the morning' by the movement of the earth's surface with respect to where the sun is. What would constitute 'evening and morning' for the first 3 days before the sun was created?

The stars, created on the 4th day: We can easily identify that it takes about 8 minutes for light to leave the sun and reach the earth. Also, astronomers, (Adventist or otherwise) agree that our closest star (besides the sun) is Proxima Centauri...about 4.5 light years away. If you look at Proxima Centauri in the night sky, you are seeing light that left it 4.5 years ago.

As stronger telescopes have been developed, we have been able to identify distant stars within our own galaxy...at least 10s of thousands of light years away. Entire galaxies are visible (separate from our own Milky Way) and by apparent size (things look smaller when they are farther away), and other factors, our closest neighbor galaxy Andromeda is about 2.5 million light-years away...and we have been able to detect some of the brightest individual stars (supernovas) within other galaxies.
When we view light from one of those galaxies, it has been in transit to earth over millions of years.

There really are only a couple of ways to deal with this in the context of a ~6000 year earth history.
Either God created those galaxies millions (and in some cases billions) of years ago such that the light from them would be reaching earth now...or...on the 4th day of creation, when He created the stars...he also created the light 'in transit' to the earth so that we could enjoy looking at them without waiting millions of years for their light to reach us.

While I don't doubt that God is capable of creating not only the sources of light, but also 'in transit' light, it seems like that would be a form of trickery to fool careful observers about the origins of our universe.

My only point in this, is that there are problems with the direct reading of the creation account that must be pondered.

RB