“Don’t go backwards to interpret Genesis as allegorical or symbolic”

Faith (and many others in this thread), the comments about those who will be driven out of SDAism by this push tend to assume that they are in disagreement with what has always been SDA belief. This is not the case: the very strong literalist recent creationist position is a relatively recent view. Note that what has happened at this GC is a vote for a *change* to Fundamental Belief 6. SDA beliefs are being *changed*, and those who won’t go along for the ride told they have no ce in the church. Bravus(Quote)

Bravus: If they are in agreement with the church, then they would be rejoicing with the rest of us over this “push” of truth. This is according to the old principle that rules don’t bother those who keep them–only those who want to break them.

As to this fundamental belief that the world was created in 6 literal 24 hour days and (yes, I dare to say it) roughly 6,000 years ago being a recent view, I fail to see your reasoning. It is as plain as day in the Scriptures, (which I am sure you realize was not recently written.) Don’t be deceived, Bravus. Anyone who tells you different is a-lying. The only reason the church has to “change” the fundamental belief is to spell it out more clearly for those people who are trying to “misinterpret” it so they can attempt to weld truth with error. Open your eyes, Bravus, before it’s too late–for you and your friends.

Faith

---

“Don’t go backwards to interpret Genesis as allegorical or symbolic”
Bravus:

I am not exactly sure what your comment means. Why do you forsee people being driven from the church? Is it because you see that there are many who have apostatized from the Truth in our church, who are not willing to live according to the beliefs and principles that the church has been founded on? These people are not driven to do that, that is purely their own choice. We all have choices to make.

Personally, I don’t see what good it does anyone to belong to the church if they don’t agree with its beliefs. By becoming members of the church, we take vows to believe in the principles laid down by it. If people do not want to live according to this set of principles, why do they want to be part of the organization at all?

We cannot hold to the world with one hand and God with the other. Belonging to this church takes a 100% commitment to God; nothing less will save anyone.

The biggest part of working out our own salvation is to submit the will to God and to overcome self. God does most of the work of salvation for us, but this part we must do. We are not to court the world, its methods, its theology, its applause or esteem. If this is where our hearts are, then we disqualify ourselves for membership with the true people of God and for citizenship in heaven. God requires total allegiance…nothing less will be acceptable.

The people you fear will be driven from the church have the opportunity to make the choice between life or death. Choose ye this day who ye will serve. Either they will love God enough to follow His will or they won’t be qualified for the church here on earth or in heaven. It is as simple as that.

I pray that as many as possible will open their eyes, see and accept the truth God has so graciously given us, and be saved.

---

Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
And you are correct, Sean, PK must consider where his influence is going–for God or against Him.

---

Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
Mr Taylor,

After reading your comment above, I must say PK isn’t the only one in that boat.I would make some comment as to how I really feel about you, but I know Sean will only delete it and you won’t benefit from my insight anyway–seeing as Sean is more concerned about other people’s feelings than you seem to be.

How you have the nerve to come to this website and call us all a bunch of morons (which is really what you are doing) is beyond me. You and your cronies are the ones drowning in error. Anyone who dares to accept man’s opinions over the Bible or SOP isn’t to be trusted to define truth for anyone.

Too straight-forward in my comment? Trust me, I have restrained myself admirably. If you only knew….

---

Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
Further to my comment on skeptism and our professors, I’ve got to tell you that I found Prof Kent to be extremely annoying in his comments on EGW. He seems to think that she is an embarrassment to the church when she speaks on Science.

Personally I find people who dis her to be the embarrassment to the church. I really don’t see how they dare to contradict and mock God’s prophet. By doing this they undermine a lot of our church’s beliefs to outsiders as well as church members. God will hold them accountable for that.

Furthermore, David’s unpublished manuscript plus other books I have read on archaeology have reported skeletons of the type that EGW mentions. Also found were artifacts such as huge iron bedsteads made for and buried with kings of huge stature.

Just because you haven’t done your research, PK, don’t jump to the conclusion the evidence isn’t there. It’s there, all right, and you make yourself look a little foolish for not knowing about it.

---

Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
David Read said:

“Ellen White’s statements about larger antediluvian life forms are well attested with regard to many different types of flora and fauna. They’re not even controversial…

Hi David,

As you know, I took advantage of your kind offer and I read your manuscript as well as I purchased 3 of your books, one for me, one for my sisters, and one for the church library. It took me a week to finish the book, and I and my sisters are very impressed with it. My one sister calls it “one incredible book”. It has answered a lot of the questions we had on the subject of evolution vs creation science, and, yes, I believe we (you and I and my sisters) are on the same page in our beliefs. We have immensely enjoyed discussing the various aspects of the subject as we read. It makes perfect sense to us.

I still have a couple of questions–new ones will probably always keep popping up–but I would say you have covered the subject admirably. Thanks so much for this book.

I agree with Elder Wilson, this is something every Adventist should read. In my opinion it should be used as required reading for science courses. It is exactly the way I would want science courses in the universities to treat the Creation/evolution debate in the classroom. And if the professors at LSU and the other SDA institutions would do this we wouldn’t be constantly losing our young people and, for that matter, our professors, to skeptisism.

Thank God someone has the courage to publish the truth and expose error.

God Bless you, David.

---

Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
Hi Sean and Bill,

I am wondering if the difference of opinion here is due to varying definitions of the word ‘science’. As we all know there is true science and there is worldly psuedo-science.

If Bill’s understanding of ‘science’ in this case is actually worldly psuedo-science, then he is correct in not wanting any truth to be compromised with it.

From Sean’s post, I believe he is referring to true science, which is definitely part of our beliefs on origins and is well supported by the Bible and SOP, as Sean admirably demonstrated.

Not having seen the exhibit myself, I cannot comment on whether or not they are mixing psuedo-science into it. (Perhaps a few of you posters out there can see the exhibit and report back to us.) Knowing the general philosophy of SAU, I would be surprised if they did.

Their goal is “to provide scientific evidence that substantiates the Bible’s account of creation.” Sounds good to me.
They also say: “Religion and science don’t need to be at odds.” And that is true when you are referring to true science, which I believe they are.

However, I do understand Bill’s reaction in that these days when people use the word ‘science’ without qualification it so often means evolutionary pseudoscience, that we tend to be suspicious.

I think, Bill, that in this case we don’t need to worry. I believe SAU’s heart is in the right place and I am so glad that at least one of our institutions is willing to stand up and be counted on the side of Creation, even though they will probably draw much criticism from the ‘scientific’ community as well as from the TEs in their own church.

God bless them for their fidelity to Him. And may God strengthen them to meet the onslaught that is most likely to follow, is my prayer for them.

---