Dr. Geraty Affirms the Literal Creation Week?

By Sean Pitman (7/19/11)

In a recent comment posted to this website, Dr. Lawrence Geraty, retired president of La Sierra University, has affirmed his own belief in the Adventist position on creation ( Link ).

For the record, 1) I am NOT a theistic evolutionist nor have I ever suggested it to be “the true model of origins.” 2) I have NEVER suggested anything like the view that conservative Adventists (of whom I count myself) are “the type that fly planes into buildings.” (Hopefully that denial will make less “scary” the fact that I have been the president of an Adventist institution.)

Why would Dr. Geraty feel the need to clarify his position on origins with the use of such strong and dramatic language? Could it be that his position has been less than clear given many of his past statements and actions as president of LSU?  Consider, for example, Dr. Geraty’s comments published in Spectrum in 2010:

Christ tells us they will know us by our love, not by our commitment to a seven literal historical, consecutive, contiguous 24-hour day week of creation 6,000 years ago which is NOT in Genesis no matter how much the fundamentalist wing of the church would like to see it there.

Fundamental Belief No. 6 uses Biblical language to which we can all agree; once you start interpreting it according to anyone’s preference you begin to cut out members who have a different interpretation. I wholeheartedly affirm Scripture, but NOT the extra-Biblical interpretation of the Michigan Conference. Since when is salvation by correct knowledge anyway?

Consider also that Dr. Geraty, during his term as president of LSU, hired science professors (Larry McCloskey and Lee Grismer in particular) who were known supporters of mainstream evolutionary theories and who had a history of undermining the Adventist position on a literal six-day creation week.  While Dr. Geraty is correct in saying that he was not directly responsible, it was Dr. Grismer, the “Reptile King“, who told students that those who believe in the literal creation week are, “The ones who fly airplanes into buildings”  ( Link ).  Students also warned Dr. Geraty of Dr. McCloskey’s attack on the Adventist view of origins yet Dr. Geraty did nothing to help these students or to counter the influence of those who were actively promoting mainstream evolution at LSU during his term as president ( Link ).  Instead, he told everyone who would listen that all of the professors at LSU are “creationists” in full support of the fundamentals of Adventism.

Dr. Geraty had to know that such claims were very deceptive if not outright lies.  He could only have seen himself clear to make such claims based on the current wording of FB#6 that Dr. Geraty and Dr. Fritz Guy helped to draft. Drs. Geraty and Guy interpret the current wording of FB#6 as allowing for non-literal views of the creation week.

Also during Dr. Geraty’s term, theologians like Dr. Webster and Dr. Guy (also a former president of LSU from 90′-93′) gave lectures to LSU students telling them, “Nobody takes the Genesis account of creation literally.” ( Link ).

It is somewhat difficult, therefore, to take Dr. Geraty’s claims of support for the Adventist perspective on origins seriously given his support for those who are most active in attacking the fundamentals of the church – especially when Dr. Geraty himself refers to those who do hold to the importance a literal creation week as view as radical right-wing tea-party fundamentalists  ( Link ) one could hardly be blamed for misunderstanding Dr. Geraty’s true position.

The confusion only increases when one considers things like Dr. Geraty’s statements in apparent support of Prof. Ervin Taylor who argues for the reliability of mainstream radiocarbon dating interpretations (which Dr. Taylor presents as clearly falsifying the SDA notion of a literal creation week in recent history; Link ) Dr. Geraty has also personally challenges the world-wide nature of the Noachian Flood, arguing that the author(s) of Genesis are most likely talking about a local flood.  In the book, Understanding Genesis: Contemporary Adventist Perspectives Dr. Geraty personally wrote:

“Was the Genesis flood worldwide? There is no evidence for that as of now, but it certainly covered the world known to the author.  It is the opinion of most experts, and little reasonable doubt remains (although some would dispute this) that the events of Genesis 6-8 must have taken place within a limited though indeed a vast area, covering not the entire globe, but the scene of the human story of the previous chapters.”

Dr. Geraty stands here in direct and very open opposition to the historical position of the SDA Church on this issue.  He also, at the same time, challenges the SDA understanding of the inspiration of Mrs. White who clearly claims that she was shown by God that the Noachian Flood was indeed world-wide in nature and was responsible for the formation of much of the geologic an fossil records.

It is also rather difficult to ignore the impression that Dr. Geraty strongly favors the “progressive” movement within the Church given his public support for the actions of those like Elder Hammill. When former General Conference Vice-President Richard Hammill became a “progressive creationist”, turning his back on the fundamental SDA doctrine of a literal 6-day creation week, Dr. Geraty seemed to be very pleased indeed as he introduced Hammill with the following words of praise:  “I could hardly have imagined inviting our speaker to share his testimony on his journey as a progressive believer.  But to his credit, he is one of the few converts to Adventism that I know who, after his retirement, has truly made a transition to a progressive faith.” ( Link )

Given such public statements and actions in favor of those attacking the church from within, together with his own published comments on the topic of origins, it is very difficult for me to accept the sincerity of Dr. Geraty’s support for the Adventist position – to include the literal nature of the creation week and the Genesis narrative as a whole.  While Dr. Geraty has been rather emphatic in his denial of “theistic evolutionism” I’ve yet to see him clearly state his support for the historical reality of the literal creation week, the worldwide Noachian Flood, or the relatively recent creation of all forms of life on this planet (i.e., within the last 10,000 years).  As always, Dr. Geraty is less than transparent in the language that he uses.  He redefines terms for himself and uses words in ways he knows many people will misunderstand what he’s really saying.  He continues to describe the professors at LSU as “creationists”, in full support of Adventism, knowing full well what this term means for most people, while also knowing that many of LSU’s professors do not support the Adventist concept of a literal creation week much less a recent arrival of all life on this planet or a worldwide Noachian Flood.

In short, I would ask that Dr. Geraty at least be forthright about what is being taught at LSU and his own personal responsibility for the current situation in play – the current creation/evolution controversy within and beyond the walls of LSU.

Share on Facebook2Pin on Pinterest0Share on LinkedIn0Tweet about this on TwitterDigg thisShare on Google+0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Print this pageEmail this to someone

148 thoughts on “Dr. Geraty Affirms the Literal Creation Week?

  1. It is more than a little difficult to impute anything to Dr. Geraty other than the conclusion that he is a blatant and out right liar. [edit]

    In court, it is called a false witness. And people are actually put in jail for doing it.

    Some of us have donated tens of thousands of dollars and paid equal sums to the church for a Christian education for ourselves, our children and grandchildren.

    Yet we have a leadership today that refuses the responsibility to deal with such situations as LSU by at least telling church members all the facts.

    And we thank Educate Truth for “forcing” at least to some extent at least a minimual response by our leaders to deal with this situation.

    And it is a long ways from being over.

    Keep the faith

    Bill Sorensen




    0
    View Comment
  2. This story contains many links to hearsay. We need some direct quotes of relevance.

    Sean Pitman has further established himself as the Abuser of the Brethren.




    0
    View Comment
  3. Dr. Geraty, You say the biblical flood was local. Doesn’t the bible say “all” humans perished except Noah and his family? (Gen 7:23) If all didn’t perish, do you believe that more humans than the eight people in the ark survived the flood?

    Where did these extra people live. Does this mean the bible is not correct when it says only Noah and his family survived?

    I believe you are an archeologist, correct? Which parts of the earth were not covered by the biblical flood? If it was only local, then did the Chinese survive? How about those in Africa. Western Europe area? North and South America? Everywhere except the middle east part?

    So, the humans currently on this earth did not originate from Noah and his group? This doesn’t seem to fit the biblical story.




    0
    View Comment
  4. [edit] Our young people’s futures and salvation is at stake here. Do we want these people teaching our children error? It is our responsibility to correct this problem. Do we really think that we can wag our fingers at these PhD’s and they will say “oh, I guess I was wrong, I will change and start teaching traditional SDA beliefs?” That is not going to happen. Change will not happen until these people are gone and honorable, loyal SDA’s teach in their place. Do we have the strength to do that? Do we care about our children enough to do that? Or are we going to continue to be weak? Weakness and sweeping things under the rugs got us to where we are.




    0
    View Comment
  5. Faithful Disciple, I agree with you. Our schools seem to have become rather wordly in regards to our adventist standards, including LSU. [edit]




    0
    View Comment
  6. Dr. Pitman, you have promoted the prejudice that a person who has strong doubts that the universe was created in six literal, consecutive, and contiguous 24-hour days 6000 years is a theistic evolutionist. What you fail to disclose to your followers is that there are sincere Seventh-day Adventists who reject theistic evolution but suggest that the traditional interpretation of the biblical account of creation may not be as airtight as some argue.

    In your usual derogatory way, you smear Dr. Geraty, expressly call him a liar, and incite your followers to compare him to Satan. I strongly suspect that you enjoy the David Koresh-like cultic influence that you exercise over the few confused individuals who post affirming coments about your screeds.

    I strongly suggest that you seek professional counseling. Who taught you manners? Certainly, you must understand that if any child were to throw a temper tantrum and rant in a disrespectful way toward others, he or she would be severely disciplined. There must be a pastor whom you can talk to, someone whom you trust, someone who might help bring spiritual and emotional stability to your perspective on things.




    0
    View Comment
  7. Faithful Disciple: “Change will not happen until these people are gone and honorable, loyal SDA’s teach in their place.”

    Right on! This is clearly the only acceptable solution to this problem…Letting the foxes continue to guard the henhouse will never be successful.

    Holly: Thank you Dr. Geraty for your clarification on this issue.

    Sorry, Holly, but I fail to see how anything has been clarified. It appears we have just been treated to another round of half-truths and outright lies. By his own mouth he stands condemned.

    Not to mention that if he had been as faithful to the SDA church and its beliefs as he wants us to believe he has, there would not have been self-declared evolutionists hired for the biology dept under his watch. The proof is in the pudding.




    0
    View Comment
  8. @Phillip Brantley, Dr. Pitman seems to be telling the truth, while Dr. Geraty is trying to rationalize his way out of his past history.

    I hope Dr. Geraty continues to post here and explain his past statements, so that we all can study and analyze who is telling the truth. He seems to have a lot of explaining to do.




    0
    View Comment
  9. Faith,

    Phillip is typical of the cry babies who call “foul” when they are exposed for what they are.

    Several years ago I was head elder in a conservative SDA church. We had a change of pastors and his wife especially felt it was her duty to push her spirituality on the church in the way of music and other “celebration” ideas and activities.

    When she could not “force” her will on the church, she cry-babied all over the church about how the elders were against her and her husbands ministry. She split the church.

    The conference supported her and her husband and that church, like many others today, are in serious financial difficulty.

    My wife and I attend a different SDA church today. Several families left as well. Good conservative financial supporters of bible Adventism.

    The point is this, the liberals are good at cry-babying all over the church when they are exposed and reproved. Nobody cries “unity” more than the [the opposers of the truth] once [error] has begun to infiltrate his philosophy and doctrine in the church.

    Ellen White once said….

    Instructing New Converts

    A laborer should never leave some portion of the work undone because it is not agreeable to perform,
    thinking that the minister coming next will do it for him. When this is the case, if a second minister follows the first, and presents the claims that God has upon His people, some draw back, saying, “The minister who brought us the truth did not mention these things.” And they become offended because of the word. Some refuse to accept the tithing system; they turn away, and no longer walk with those who believe and love the truth. When other lines are opened before them, they answer, “It was not so taught us,” and they hesitate to move forward. How much better it would have been if the first messenger of truth had faithfully and thoroughly educated these converts in regard to all essential matters, even if fewer had been added to the church under his labors. God would be better pleased to have six thoroughly converted to the truth than to have sixty make a profession and yet not be truly converted. {CS 104.3}

    I don’t know if the percentage is even that good today. About 10%

    And even this isn’t the worst part. The ill informed and half converted are pressed quickly into high places of influence and authority. They get up in church wearing jewelry, half clothed, and leading out in [inappropriate] music.

    So, don’t worry about the cry-babies. Remember this….

    The shaking of God blows away multitudes like dry leaves.–4T 89 (1876). {LDE 180.1}

    Chaff like a cloud will be borne away on the wind, even from places where we see only floors of rich wheat.–5T 81 (1882). {LDE 180.2}

    Soon God’s people will be tested by fiery trials, and the great proportion of those who now appear to be genuine and true will prove to be base metal. . . . {LDE 180.3}

    When the religion of Christ is most held in contempt, when His law is most despised, then should our zeal be the warmest and our courage and firmness the most unflinching. To stand in defense of truth and righteousness when the majority forsake us, to fight the battles of the Lord when champions are few–this will be our test. At this time we must gather warmth from the coldness of others, courage from their cowardice, and loyalty from their treason.–5T 136 (1882). {LDE 180.4}

    The church may appear as about to fall, but it does not fall. It remains, while the sinners in Zion will be sifted out–the chaff separated from the precious wheat. This is a terrible ordeal, but nevertheless it must take place.–2SM 380 (1886). {LDE 180.5}

    As the storm approaches, a large class who have professed faith in the third angel’s message, but have not been sanctified through obedience to the truth, abandon their position and join the ranks of the opposition.–GC 608 (1911). {LDE 180.6}

    It is going to get tougher, not easier.

    Keep the faith,

    Bill Sorensen




    0
    View Comment
  10. @James:

    This story contains many links to hearsay. We need some direct quotes of relevance.

    Did you fail to read the references to what Dr. Geraty has himself written on this topic? For example, what do you think Geraty’s support for the theory of a “local” Noachian Flood (compared to the biblical model of a worldwide Flood) implies about the origin of the fossil record and/or geologic column? – about the literal creation week as the origin for all life on this planet?

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  11. Sean, they ignore the obvious and seek to find any obscurity they can cling to, to avoid admitting reality.

    Is that political or what?

    Bill Sorensen




    0
    View Comment
  12. From the article above –

    http://www.educatetruth.com/la-sierra-evidence/dr-geraty-affirms-the-literal-creation-week/
    When former General Conference Vice-President Richard Hammill became a “progressive creationist”, turning his back on the fundamental SDA doctrine of a literal 6-day creation week, Dr. Geraty seemed to be very pleased indeed as he introduced Hammill with the following words of praise: “I could hardly have imagined inviting our speaker to share his testimony on his journey as a progressive believer. But to his credit, he is one of the few converts to Adventism that I know who, after his retirement, has truly made a transition to a progressive faith.” ( Link )

    Apparently Geraty’s hiring of evolutionists while he was President of LSU as well as his creating an environmnet for those like Fritz Guy and Prof Bradley could mature their plans to promote evolutionism within the LSU context – is a bit of consistent pattern.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  13. Phillip Brantley: Dr. Pitman, you have promoted the prejudice that a person who has strong doubts that the universe was created in six literal, consecutive, and contiguous 24-hour days 6000 years is a theistic evolutionist.

    Ok now you have my curiosity awakened — in that unproven and possibly false accusation above.

    Please provide a quote of Sean saying that the entire universe is only 6,000 years old.

    Apparently you have been watching this board even more closely than I – and I missed it.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  14. Phillip Brantley: I strongly suspect that you enjoy the David Koresh-like cultic influence that you exercise over the few confused individuals who post affirming coments about your screeds.

    Phillip – have you been introduced to the concept known as “Ad hominem” in the context where it is a “bad thing”?

    Why go off the rails like that?

    What are you accomplishing?

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  15. Phillip Brantley: I strongly suggest that you seek professional counseling. Who taught you manners? Certainly, you must understand that if any child were to throw a temper tantrum and rant in a disrespectful way toward others, he or she would be severely disciplined. There must be a pastor whom you can talk to, someone whom you trust, someone who might help bring spiritual and emotional stability to your perspective on things.

    Clearly you are engaged in more than a little projection. Even so – you have put your finger on some good remedy – so at least you know the right course of action to take.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  16. @Phillip Brantley:

    Dr. Pitman, you have promoted the prejudice that a person who has strong doubts that the universe was created in six literal, consecutive, and contiguous 24-hour days 6000 years is a theistic evolutionist. What you fail to disclose to your followers is that there are sincere Seventh-day Adventists who reject theistic evolution but suggest that the traditional interpretation of the biblical account of creation may not be as airtight as some argue.

    I myself don’t believe that the entire universe was necessarily created 6,000 years ago. I do beleive that the Bible is quite clear, however, that all life on this planet was in fact created within very recent history (i.e., less than 10,000 years ago) during the course of a literal 6-day creation week.

    Those who support the theory that features of the geologic column and/or fossil record required vast periods of time to explain directly undermine the biblical concept of a literal creation week and support, quite directly, the evolutionary model of common descent over billions of years of time.

    Throwing God into the mix at this point, producing a theistic model of evolution, really does nothing to support the Adventist model of origins. In fact, the theistic model is, in many ways, much more dangerous to Adventism and Christianity at large than is the atheistic evolutionary model of origins.

    In any case, I see nothing wrong or “mentally imballanced” about asking for and actually expecting open honest transparency from those who are leaders in our church and schools – especially from those who are in charge of teaching our children in a truly “Adventist” setting. In fact, if find it very dishonest for anyone to suggest, as you seem to be suggesting, that it is perfectly fine for the leadership of our schools to be less than forthright with the church membership at large as to what is really being taught to our sons and daughters in our own schools.

    Clearly Dr. Geraty has been less than forthright in this regard. I therefore consider your support of such evasive and misleading comments and actions on the part of Dr. Geraty to be more than a little imballanced and disheartening. How can a problematic situation be resolved if those responsible in various ways for the problem refuse to admit that there is or ever was a problem?

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  17. I am still waiting to hear that our leaders are taking a stand. Why have we not heard from the Central California Conference, and why is the CCC still financially supporting La Sierra? Why is it that only the Michigan Conference has the courage and integrity to go on record that they will not subsidize any workers students that attend La Sierra?




    0
    View Comment
  18. Sean Pitman “I myself don’t believe that the entire universe was necessarily created 6,000 years ago.”

    Does that mean God didn’t really create the sun, moon and stars on the 4th day?




    0
    View Comment
  19. It means that the Sun and Moon are the “TWO Great Lights” created on day 4 — just as Genesis 1 says.

    Count them … “two”.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  20. Ted L. Stephens DDS: I am still waiting to hear that our leaders are taking a stand. Why have we not heard from the Central California Conference, and why is the CCC still financially supporting La Sierra

    I thought LSU was in the SECC.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  21. BobRyan: I thought LSU was in the SECC.in Christ,Bob
    Bob, you are, of course, correct but I am in the CCC and am still waiting for them to take a stand. In the interem my tithe goes to Michigan Conference.




    0
    View Comment
  22. Bob, Central California Conference is a part of the Pacific Union. La Sierra and PUC belong to the Pacific Union, not the individual conferences of the Union. So Ted is correct to suggest that CCC could and should be doing something similar to the Michigan Conference to effect change at LSU. When do you think we might expect action from them? This problem is far from fixed, in fact the fix has barely gotten started. The problem will only be fixed by some faculty leaving LSU and being replaced by loyal SDA faculty who believe in our church and its beliefs. That part of the solution is still future.




    0
    View Comment
  23. Claiming to not believe in theistic evolution while rejecting a literal creation week is pretty routine with some. Thus, what Dr. Geraty really needs to do to clear the air is to explicitly reject what Ellen White called a most dangerous form of infidelity, namely, that the 6 days of creation weren’t really 6 days.

    Bille Burdick routinely attacks the literality of creation week over on SDAnet.org (hosted at but not controlled by Andrews University), but denies that she believes in theistic evolution. I think she prefers the label progressive creationist.

    What is odd is that Bille is an SDAnet board member. SDAnet policy states that “SDAnet aims to maintain an atmosphere which is supportive and affirming of the Seventh-day Adventist church, its beliefs, and leadership,” yet Bille routinely attacks Adventist beliefs and has made derogatory comments about church leadership. Yet raising these issues privately with SDAnet administration was soon followed by a permanent ban from posting.

    So there appears to be some sort of widespread conspiracy to deny the literal creation week and promote what Ellen White called a most dangerous form of infidelity, while simultaneously denying theistic evolution. It sounds like doublespeak to me.

    But perhaps Dr. Geraty could explicitly describe how his views differ from theistic evolution, while expressing his ardent agreement with Ellen White’s denunciation of the allegorizing of the creation account, especially since he has stated that he is a “fan” of hers.




    0
    View Comment
  24. Bill Sorenson, would you please clarify your remarks? Who and whose wife are you claiming promoted celebration music and split a church?

    I do not know you and you do not know me, but your comment is susceptible to being interpreted otherwise.

    But of course I recognize that little care is given to what people say on this website.




    0
    View Comment
  25. Wonder what would happen IF –

    An ardent but “closet” creationist from the “conservative” side of the Adventist community were to attend a top public university(s) (anywhere in the world) and earn a doctorate in biology (or related field). Over a few years, this hypothetical scientist would eventually find his way into a top position in the biology department at a public university – like maybe “University of California, Berkley” After the appropriate time and protocols, our professor becomes tenured. As a little time passes, the mask comes off and we find this closet creationist teaching the literal young age of the earth with a literal 7-day miraculous week of creation as fact, in his classroom.

    Far-fetched, maybe? But how would Berkley deal with it? I think its kinda what happened to Walter Veith in S. Africa, except that he did not infiltrate their system under a pretense.

    But how would a public university deal with such a situation?




    0
    View Comment
  26. Faithful Disciple: Bob, Central California Conference is a part of the Pacific Union. La Sierra and PUC belong to the Pacific Union, not the individual conferences of the Union. So Ted is correct to suggest that CCC could and should be doing something similar to the Michigan Conference to effect change at LSU. When do you think we might expect action from them?

    I agree that the other Pacific Union conferences not hosting LSU such as CCC should be standing for the truth though the heavens fall – instead of drifting toward a “politics as usual” solution – which may be useful to individual careers but does not promote the cause of God.

    To their credit while Jerry Page was at the CCC – he did take a stand against the collapse at LSU – and they took some heat over that from their peers within the Pacific Union.

    Not sure if the CCC still has that same sense of determination and clear vision – but it would be helpful to hear from them.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  27. BTW – I also agree that it is the Pacific Union officers that are included on the LSU board and the president of the Pacific Union that chairs that board.

    However if you look at the LSU executive board and and also its board of directors – I think the vast majority are from the SECC since that is where LSU is located.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  28. Charles, in response to your “what if” scenario, I doubt that liberals would live and let live, or coexist with a fellow biologist who promoted creation.

    Liberals are only open minded and tolerant of other ideologies when it is theirs. When an ideology is promoted that contradicts theirs, they suddenly become very intolerant and ugly. Tolerance is a one way door for liberals. They are especially intolerant of Christians who believe the Bible is true and are what the liberals call “fundamentalists.” From the way liberals use that term, it would appear to be the worst thing a person could be.

    Do I say this to be unkind? No. It is just from observation. It’s a sad state to be in, but here we are. It won’t be long before it will be very unpopular, and maybe illegal to be a Bible-believing “fundamentalist” Christian in this country.

    Just look at the venom that is spewed at those Christians who oppose gay marriage. The same goes for those that promote a short age of the earth on so called “Adventist” websites like Spectrum. That site name is a misnomer.




    0
    View Comment
  29. Phillip Brantley: I strongly suspect that you enjoy the David Koresh-like cultic influence that you exercise over the few confused individuals who post affirming coments about your screeds.

    I wonder how much longer it will be before the GC steps in and puts some distance between itself and this growing cult that loyally follows Sean’s every whim.




    0
    View Comment
  30. Holly Pham: I hope Dr. Geraty continues to post here and explain his past statements, so that we all can study and analyze who is telling the truth. He seems to have a lot of explaining to do.

    CYBERBULLYING 101: Do not respond to those who attack you.

    I don’t believe he will return. As we all know, one can say, “I believe in A, B, C, D,…” and you folks say, “LIAR, LIAR, LIAR, LIAR!”

    He won’t be back to dignify your attacks.




    0
    View Comment
  31. Sean Pitman: @ James: Did you fail to read the references to what Dr. Geraty has himself written on this topic? For example, what do you think Geraty’s support for the theory of a “local” Noachian Flood (compared to the biblical model of a worldwide Flood) implies about the origin of the fossil record and/or geologic column? – about the literal creation week as the origin for all life on this planet?

    How would the fossil record and geological column look any different today, Sean, if a flood covered, say 65% or 85% or 95% of the earth’s surface, instead of 100.0%? Does size really matter?




    0
    View Comment
  32. Sean Pitman: I myself don’t believe that the entire universe was necessarily created 6,000 years ago. I do beleive that the Bible is quite clear, however, that all life on this planet was in fact created within very recent history (i.e., less than 10,000 years ago) during the course of a literal 6-day creation week.

    Ellen White makes abundantly clear it was 6,000 years ago. What gives you license to stretch this? Where in scripture do you arrive at 10,000 years ago? You have dinged Geraty for stating that 6,000 years ago is not in scripture, and now you have conceded that you don’t believe it is either.




    0
    View Comment
  33. By my last post, I’m referring to life on this planet; I realize Ms. White permits an older universe. I’m just amazed Sean allows more than 6,000 years for life.




    0
    View Comment
  34. BobRyan:
    It means that the Sun and Moon are the “TWO Great Lights” created on day 4 — just as Genesis 1 says.

    Count them … “two”.

    What about the part where it says “he made the stars also”?




    0
    View Comment
  35. Lawrence Geraty:

    Christ tells us they will know us by our love, not by our commitment to a seven literal historical, consecutive, contiguous 24-hour day week of creation 6,000 years ago which is NOT in Genesis no matter how much the fundamentalist wing of the church would like to see it there.

    Sean Pitman:

    I do beleive that the Bible is quite clear, however, that all life on this planet was in fact created within very recent history (i.e., less than 10,000 years ago) during the course of a literal 6-day creation week.

    What’s the difference?




    0
    View Comment
  36. Professor Kent: CYBERBULLYING 101: Do not respond to those who attack you.I don’t believe he will return. As we all know, one can say, “I believe in A, B, C, D,…” and you folks say, “LIAR, LIAR, LIAR, LIAR!”He won’t be back to dignify your attacks.

    Prof. Kent, I simply asked Dr. Geraty to further explain his positions, both on evolution and on his support of gay marriage, which he has been actively promoting. How is that bullying?




    0
    View Comment
  37. Oink: What’s the difference?

    Well if one’s solution for every problem that crops up is to “pretend they don’t understand the issue” as Kent offers to demonstrate for us – then no amount of blindingly obvious gap in the storytelling that goes on against creationists “will be seen” by them. At least not seen and then “admitted”.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  38. BobRyan said:

    It means that the Sun and Moon are the “TWO Great Lights” created on day 4 — just as Genesis 1 says.
    Count them … “two”.

    Scott replies –

    Al Scott:
    What about the part where it says “he made the stars also”?
    Al Scott(Quote)

    Most people do not count the other galaxies as one of the “two great lights” that were created.

    And most Creationists also insist that God “made the stars also” they just do not all claim that God “made them as two great lights” – so no need to try to force the making of the stars into day 4, the day when God made “Two great lights” the one to rule the day and the other to rule the night.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  39. Professor Kent: How would the fossil record and geological column look any different today, Sean, if a flood covered, say 65% or 85% or 95% of the earth’s surface, instead of 100.0%? Does size really matter?

    Have you actually read Genesis 7??

    What would it matter – to you – if the Bible were not true?

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  40. First we get this bit of “sweetness and light” from Kent.

    Professor Kent said:

    Bob, you’ve hardened your heart and gone mad. You wouldn’t know “truth” if it smacked you between the eyes. You’ve proven to every reader here that you are not “in Christ.” Turn off your computer, throw your modem in garbage, and save your soul before it is consumed with hatred and falsehood.

    Then we have it followed with this innexplicable claim –

    Professor Kent said:

    What Professor Kent Believes1.

    26. That websites like Educate Truth, Spectrum, and Adventist Today too often air the very worst of Seventh-day Adventism; I wish the harsh dialogue on both sides (progressive/conservative) would disappear, as it tends to polarize and divide the Church.

    Sean Pitman, Bob Ryan, David Read, Ron Stone, Rich Constantinescu, Faith, and others have called into question my beliefs (some frequently calling me a “liar” and “spin master”) and my consistency in incorporating these beliefs into my posts (Sean Pitman claims that I speak out of both sides of my mouth).
    However, I invite anyone to point out to me any post written by me that you think is inconsistent with my stated beliefs.

    What are the readers supposed to think when you go both ways at once?

    Apparently there is no end to that element of tossing out their ad hominem while claiming to promote a kinder-gentler tone of discourse.


    Phillip Brantley said
    :

    I strongly suspect that you enjoy the David Koresh-like cultic influence that you exercise over the few confused individuals who post affirming coments about your screeds.

    Professor Kent:
    I wonder how much longer it will be before the GC steps in and puts some distance between itself and this growing cult that loyally follows Sean’s every whim.

    Apparently these guys are no strangers to the art of projecting their own penchant for ad hominem onto others.

    Were we really supposed to “not notice”??

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  41. Oh well – they were just doing it in an effort to line up behind Geraty’s program.

    I suppose that given that context – they were being “consistent” in an odd kind of way.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  42. I just read this whole dialogue and wonder if you realize that the real question in all this about the week being literal is the Last Day of the week. If we don’t have a literal week we don’t have a literal Sabbath. We don’t have a day that God specifically designated and blessed to be His. We have an unspecified, immeasurable period that has little relevance to us. Frankly, you can call yourself anything, but a Seventh-day Adventist that doesn’t believe in a literal week is a misnomer. It is like an American who doesn’t believe in the constitution. Adventist’s aren’t progressive as in worldly terms. We are those who stand in the gap, following the Bible prophets who called the progressives of their day back to the old paths.
    It amazes me that we educate ourselves into thinking that God doesn’t mean what He says. That as an all powerful Being, He couldn’t actually create everything in one 24 hour period or less if He chose. He chose a week period because it perfectly met the needs of His creation. It gave them time to work and time to meet with Him if they chose. We have that same opportunity to meet with Him on one day of a week that He created. Right? He created. If you miss the day He created saying it was Holy, a sign of His authority as creator, I’m afraid you may miss being sealed by His sealing Angel that will be looking for His denominted people! Have we completely forgotten the first Angel’s message of Revelation 14 that points us back to the God of creation? If we have questioned His Word we won’t understand & know what to come out of in the second message so the third doesn’t even matter anymore. I don’t think it is multiple choice….




    0
    View Comment
  43. Larry says he is a conservative. If he is a conservative, then he would believe that God created the earth in 6 literal 24 hour days and rested on the 7th. That is what the Bible says. He would also believe that Adam and Eve were created by God. God meant them for each other and as a pattern for families here on the earth. He would then say that in this world that is terribly affected by sin that the family and marriage plan is still in effect and does not include two men or two women marrying. If he cannot agree to these basic Bible beliefs, then he is not a conservative as he contends.

    Professor Kent can say that Larry is not posting for whatever reason, but it is likely that he is not posting because he cannot agree to my statements above and is really a progressive who rejects some very basic Bible beliefs. That is just my surmising.




    0
    View Comment
  44. Alle:

    Way to go!!! These professors on this site love to get on the merry-go-round and go for a spin to try to keep the rest of us off balance. You just brought it all back into focus.

    LOL I love it!




    0
    View Comment
  45. I am very disappointed that Sean Pitman would suggest the earth and especially life on it is anything older than 6000 years old. Ellen White made very clear it was 6000 years and there is NO scriptural or SOP evidence to extend it beyond that.

    The GC is rewriting FB #6 and I expect them to put 6000 years in the wording. If they so much as suggest anything longer then I am going to find another place to send my tithe money. To go beyond 6000 years puts one on a slippery slope.

    And Sean Pitman while you are doing many right things you are totally misleading the church to suggest any length of time longer than 6000 years. Your as bad as the infidel Geraty. This is a time when we need to stand for truth and let these professors know that we will not tolerate their lies.




    0
    View Comment
  46. @Jeff:

    To quote Mrs. White:

    Many who profess to believe the Bible record are at a loss to account for wonderful things which are found in the earth, with the view that creation week was only seven literal days, and that the world is now only about six thousand years old. These, to free themselves of difficulties thrown in their way by infidel geologists, adopt the view that the six days of creation were six vast, indefinite periods, and the day of God’s rest was another indefinite period; making senseless the fourth commandment of God’s holy law. Some eagerly receive this position, for it destroys the force of the fourth commandment, and they feel a freedom from its claims upon them. They have limited ideas of the size of men, animals and trees before the flood, and of the great changes which then took place in the earth. – EGW, SG, Vol. 3, p. 92

    I am fully in line with this statement. I believe that all life on Earth was created within just six literal days within recent history. Both the Bible and Mrs. White support this position. The literal nature of creation week is of prime importance to Adventism – despite the claims of Dr. Geraty and others within the church to the contrary.

    Now, Mrs. White does use the phrase “about six thousand years old” which some may aruge allows for some uncertainty as to the precise time of creation. However, the Bible does not allow for anything remotely close to what those like Dr. Geraty would need to interpret the fossil record as forming as the result of anything other than a rather sudden watery catastrophe… consistent with a recent Noachian Flood of worldwide proportions.

    Dr. Geraty’s notion of a local Mesopotamian flood as being the Noachian Flood described in the Bible is simply not supported by the Biblical text, the writings of Mrs. White, or the fossil/geologic records themselves.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  47. Holly Pham: Prof. Kent, I simply asked Dr. Geraty to further explain his positions, both on evolution and on his support of gay marriage, which he has been actively promoting. How is that bullying?

    Ted L. Stephens DDS: BobRyan: I thought LSU was in the SECC.in Christ,BobBob, you are, of course, correct but I am in the CCC and am still waiting for them to take a stand. In the interem my tithe goes to Michigan Conference.

    I know that Jerry Page was and is a faithful SDA and leader as far as supporting our beliefs. Does anyone know if President Cano is similar? I think he is at the Soquel Campmeeting now, so maybe someone attending could ask him?




    0
    View Comment
  48. BobRyan: And most Creationists also insist that God “made the stars also” they just do not all claim that God “made them as two great lights” – so no need to try to force the making of the stars into day 4, the day when God made “Two great lights” the one to rule the day and the other to rule the night.

    Does this mean you take all of Genesis 1 literally, except the last part of Genesis 1:16? How do you decide when there is “no need to try to force” something, such as a literal interpretation of part of Genesis?




    0
    View Comment
  49. BobRyan: And most Creationists also insist that God “made the stars also” they just do not all claim that God “made them as two great lights” – so no need to try to force the making of the stars into day 4, the day when God made “Two great lights” the one to rule the day and the other to rule the night.

    Very often those who do not accept the Bible start off by ignoring key details in the text. In this case the detail that on day 4 “God made TWO” great lights instead of a zillion-and-TWO is a key detail I prefer to take literally

    Al Scott:

    Does this mean you take all of Genesis 1 literally, except the last part of Genesis 1:16? How do you decide when there is “no need to try to force” something, such as a literal interpretation of part of Genesis?

    AGain I take the number two when it comes to the exact number of lights made on day 4 — literally.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  50. BobRyan: AGain I take the number two when it comes to the exact number of lights made on day 4 — literally.

    Genesis 1:16 says “And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.” Are you suggesting that if I believe that God created the stars on the fourth day (in addition to the two lights), I don’t believe in the Bible?




    0
    View Comment
  51. Holly Pham:
    I know that Jerry Page was and is a faithful SDA and leader as far as supporting our beliefs. Does anyone know if President Cano is similar? I think he is at the Soquel Campmeeting now, so maybe someone attending could ask him?

    Holly, you bring up a great point. It is past time to call our elected leaders and ask what they believe in regards to our church’s FB’s. If they say that they have doubts about our beliefs, then we should respectfully replace them. If they are in support of our beliefs, then we should find out why they are silent in this critical time in history and what they are going to do to stand up against the error that is coming out of our colleges and universities. They have a pattern to follow in the Michigan Conference.




    0
    View Comment
  52. Like any good politician, Dr. Geraty says what he thinks will be well received by the audience he’s addressing. Don’t look for consistency, look for expediency.

    I have to admit that the liberals have far outclassed the conservatives in political acumen, which is why they are running most of the institutions and larger churches in what remains a basically conservative denomination.




    0
    View Comment
  53. Al Scott: Genesis 1:16 says “And God made two great lights;

    the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.” Are you suggesting that if I believe that God created the stars on the fourth day (in addition to the two lights), I don’t believe in the Bible?

    I am saying that if you stick with the literal reading “And God made TWO great lights” you have a position consistent with both the Bible and with what Ellen White wrote.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  54. David Read: Like any good politician, Dr. Geraty says what he thinks will be well received by the audience he’s addressing.

    He was “Crafting” his statement to cover both bases. Trying to say words that could easily be misinterpreted to mean “we do not teach evolution as if it were fact at LSU and how dare you accuse this wonderful Christian school of doing such a thing” all the while really saying “we can promote evolution as fact as long as we do not go to the point of being atheists”.

    What he could not say without getting caught red handed was “we do NOT promote T.E. as if evolution were actually true at LSU. Rather we expose the gaps, flaws and blunders of evolution so our students will be well informed.”.

    Critical thinking was needed when reading his well crafted statement and he knew that most people would not be inclinded to use it.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  55. BobRyan: I am saying that if you stick with the literal reading “And God made TWO great lights” you have a position consistent with both the Bible and with what Ellen White wrote.

    So are you saying that a literal reading of “And God made two great lights” means God didn’t make “the stars also”? There are two parts to this verse, and you are ignoring the second part.




    0
    View Comment
  56. Faithful Disciple: Holly, you bring up a great point. It is past time to call our elected leaders and ask what they believe in regards to our church’s FB’s. If they say that they have doubts about our beliefs, then we should respectfully replace them. If they are in support of our beliefs, then we should find out why they are silent in this critical time in history and what they are going to do to stand up against the error that is coming out of our colleges and universities. They have a pattern to follow in the Michigan Conference.

    That does sound like a good idea–to contact our leaders. But, what if they simply say that they believe but don’t act like they believe? What do we do then?




    0
    View Comment
  57. Professor Kent: I wonder how much longer it will be before the GC steps in and puts some distance between itself and this growing cult that loyally follows Sean’s every whim.

    I know someone who is attending the ASI convention next month. President Wilson will be there. I will ask them to speak to President Wilson about his opinion of the Educatetruth website.




    0
    View Comment
  58. @Al Scott:

    The Bible is quite clear that God made everything – including the stars. However, the Bible also suggests that the universe existed before the special creation week that took place on this particular planet. Read in Job were the “sons of God shouted for joy” at the creation of our own world. – Job 38:7

    Where did the “sons of God” live?

    You see, the Genesis account of creation deals specifically with the special creation of our own world and the features of our world necessary to support complex life. However, this account also makes plain that God is the creator of all things that exist in the entire universe. The comment, “He made the stars also” is as an aside, not necessarily indicating that the stars were made during the creation week of our planet, but that God created everything – in case anyone was wondering.

    In short, it is quite clear that the author of Genesis was trying to get across to his readers that God is the creator of all that exists and that He created all life and the features necessary to support that life, on this particular planet, in just six literal days…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  59. @Sean Pitman:

    My point is that Genesis 1:16 is unequivocal in stating God created the stars on the fourth day. I’m not trying to interpret what I think “the author of Genesis was trying to get across to his readers.” I’m looking at what Genesis actually says. It says the stars were created on the fourth day, and now you’re telling me this is not so?




    0
    View Comment
  60. @Al Scott:

    Gen 1
    16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

    What I see is a statement that is talking about the 4th day. Clearly it says that the greater light was for the day and the lesser light was for the night. That indeed matches what we see in the sun and the moon today.

    Then it says – almost as a point of clarification? “He made the stars also.”

    I know of no creationist who has believed that the whole universe was made in the first week. I understand it to be our own solar system – which was designed and put in place in such a way to support life. It was all part of God’s perfectly engineered design.

    There is a whole lot of detail that we might ask for about this account. I am sure that in the soon-coming millenium in Heaven, we will learn all that we need to know about the details. Those who are not there will probably continue in ignorance.

    God has lived eternally past. He will live eternally future. I believe He has always been creating and always will. Our little 6000 year history is a blip of “time” in the span of eternity.

    If someone wants to think something else, God allows you.




    0
    View Comment
  61. Charles: Gen 1
    16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

    What I see is a statement that is talking about the 4th day. Clearly it says that the greater light was for the day and the lesser light was for the night. That indeed matches what we see in the sun and the moon today.

    Then it says – almost as a point of clarification? “He made the stars also.”

    But if this is a point of clarification, and God created the stars before the fourth day, you can just as easily say he created the sun and moon before the fourth day. And if that’s the case, what did God create on the fourth day?

    Isn’t Genesis 1:14-19 a self-contained description of the fourth day? What is the basis for dropping out the stars?




    0
    View Comment
  62. @Al Scott:

    My point is that Genesis 1:16 is unequivocal in stating God created the stars on the fourth day. I’m not trying to interpret what I think “the author of Genesis was trying to get across to his readers.” I’m looking at what Genesis actually says. It says the stars were created on the fourth day, and now you’re telling me this is not so?

    Everything must be interpreted in an effort to understand what the author was trying to tell his readers. This is called the science of hermeneutics.

    In context of the Bible as a whole, it is fairly clear that the author’s parenthetical phrase, “he made the stars also” does not require that God created the stars ex nihilo on the fourth day of the creation of this particular planet into a state able to support life. That doesn’t make much sense in context.

    Of course, some creationists have held that the entire universe, or at least the visible portion, was created on the fourth day. The text arguably permits this interpretation, but does not require it. “The stars also” is merely a parenthetical phrase in which God is identified as the creator of the stars without identifying when this was accomplished. The text appears to permit the interpretation that the stars were already in existence, perhaps with planets inhabited by other created intelligences.

    For example, Clyde Webster, former associate director of the Geo-Science Research Institute, in his book The Earth writes, “There is no reference in Scripture within creation week that addresses the creation of water or the mineral content of dry land. . . . The only reference made to their creation is ‘in the beginning.’ It seems possible then that the elementary inorganic matter is not bound by a limited age as is the living matter.”

    Early Adventist pioneers also seemed to favor this view. M. C. Wilcox, in 1898 wrote, “When did God create, or bring into existence, the heaven and the earth? ‘In the beginning.’ When this ‘beginning’ was, how long a period it covered, it is idle to conjecture; for it is not revealed. That it was a period which antedated the six days’ work is evident.”

    More recently, at the 2002 General Conference-sponsored Faith and Science Conference, Richard Davidson from Andrews University stated that “[T]he biblical text of Genesis 1 leaves room for either (a) young pre-fossil rock, created as part of the seven days of creation (with apparent old age), or (b) much older pre-fossil earth rock, with a long interval between the creation of the inanimate ‘raw materials’ on earth described in Genesis 1:1,2 and the seven days of Creation week described in Genesis 1:3ff (which I find the preferable interpretation).”

    After all, the Bible itself indicates the pre-existence of the universe before the creation of this planet to a state that could support life. For example, consider, yet again, that the author of Job claims that the sons of God sang together and that the angels shouted for joy at the creation of our world (Job 38:7). Mrs. White also tells us that the angels and other intelligences on other planets pre-existed the creation of our planet and that our creation had something to do with the jealousy that began in the heart of Lucifer. So, what do such Biblical claims indicate about the pre-existence of the universe? Where did the angels and sons of God live?

    Sean Pitman
    DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  63. Sean Pitman: So, what do such Biblical claims indicate about the pre-existence of the universe? Where did the angels and sons of God live?

    Somewhere other than the stars.

    Is God limited to providing the same living model for all of his creations? Aren’t you using Job 38:7 to assume the existence of something that simply isn’t described there?

    Why is only part of Gen 1:16 a parenthetical? The second part is not in parenthesis. Why does the possibility of ancient rock in Gen 1:2 mean the stars weren’t all created on the fourth day?




    0
    View Comment
  64. Sean: “…or (b) much older pre-fossil earth rock, with a long interval between the creation of the inanimate ‘raw materials’ on earth described in Genesis 1:1,2 and the seven days of Creation week described in Genesis 1:3ff (which I find the preferable interpretation).”

    However, Sean, the 2 EGW quotations I have posted twice here on this site doesn’t give this possibility any credence.

    It clearly states that in the creation of the earth God was not indebted to pre-existing matter. That He spoke and it was done. That the FOUNDATIONS of the earth were laid and all creation happened within the six days. God can speak rocks into existance at any age or stage that He wants to. He is not limited to man’s logic. I’m afraid we disagree on this topic.

    However, I totally agree with you that the universe was created before the earth came into existance and that it could be very old.

    From the point of view of watching creation, I can imagine that Moses saw all the stars pop out of the sky all of a sudden. I believe–and it’s only my theory and imagination–that God would have brought the light from the other stars and planets to the earth at the same time that He made the sun and moon. It takes only 8.5 minutes for the sunlight to reach the earth, but it takes millions and trillions of light years for the light from the stars to reach this planet. Perhaps God just connected the light rays to the earth at one time. Something we will have to find out in heaven. God has many wonderful surprises in store for us there.

    Again, this is only a thought of mine. I certainly wouldn’t hang all my faith on the rightness or wrongness of the above statement. Thankfully, this is not the point under contention in the LSU controversy.




    0
    View Comment
  65. Sean: “So, what do such Biblical claims indicate about the pre-existence of the universe? Where did the angels and sons of God live?”

    The Sons of God were, as you correctly understand it, from the other populated planets of our universe. And God and the angels live in heaven, Sean, as you well know. Which may or may not be in our universe. We are told that when Jesus comes, it will be through the hole in the belt of the constellation Orion. Does that mean He lives within or without our universe? Is it possible there are other universes? Does it make a bit of difference to our soul salvation? I don’t think so. Not unless we deny He made the universe and all that is in it. Again, another surprise package to open when we get to heaven.
    All I know is, we have a marvelous Creator who has the power to make the vast universe as well as this pin-prick of a puny little insignificant planet called Earth. And He easily made our earth from foundation up in the six allotted days. How the theistic evolutionists limit His power! They refuse to give Him the glory He so richly deserves. What a sin!




    0
    View Comment
  66. Sean Pitman: So, what do such Biblical claims indicate about the pre-existence of the universe? Where did the angels and sons of God live?
    Somewhere other than the stars.

    I am always happy to meet someone who knows more about the Universe than God – who created the stars and then took one of his prophets to a planet with intelligent life on it – in vision.

    In the comment below Al claims an entirely new cosmological model other than the one we find in the Bible and in science.

    Al Scott: Somewhere other than the stars.

    Oh well – we are not here to complain about your free will to imagine such things.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  67. Al Scott: But if this is a point of clarification, and God created the stars before the fourth day, you can just as easily say he created the sun and moon before the fourth day

    The Bible does not say “on the fourth day God created the stars” but it does say that on the fourth day God “made TWO great lights”.

    Something to think about when taking the bible literally – is that the literal number given for the lights made on day 4 – is two, not a zillion-and-two.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  68. Al Scott: My point is that Genesis 1:16 is unequivocal in stating God created the stars on the fourth day.

    No Bible text says “God created the stars on the fourth day”

    But we do have a text that says on the fourth day “God created TWO great lights”.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  69. Al Scott: Isn’t Genesis 1:14-19 a self-contained description of the fourth day? What is the basis for dropping out the stars?

    The earth was “already formless and void” on day 1 – day 1 is not boxing in all the description given as if it all happened on day one.

    Neither is day 4 boxing in “God made the stars also”.

    The days are very specific in regard to “And God said” and then “And there was” or “And God made TWO” the one to rule the day and the other to rule the night.

    So when the text is specific about what was actually made on that day – it is to be accepted.

    Everything else has to be balanced with the rest of scripture.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  70. BobRyan: The Bible does not say “on the fourth day God created the stars” but it does say that on the fourth day God “made TWO great lights”.

    Using your reasoning, and taking the Bible literally, it doesn’t say “on the fourth day God created two great lights” either. The fourth day is only mentioned in verse 19. Doesn’t verse 19 modify all of verses 14 to 18? How do you reach over to verse 19 and decide it literally applies to the first half of verse 14 but it does not literally apply to the second half of verse 14?




    0
    View Comment
  71. Al Scott: Using your reasoning, and taking the Bible literally, it doesn’t say “on the fourth day God created two great lights” either

    Interesting idea.

    Let’s look.

    In all cases the text is clear that “God made two great lights” on day 4… But the “He made” section for stars in “inserted”.

    Holman –
    16 God made the two great lights—the greater light to have dominion over the day and the lesser light to have dominion over the night—as well as the stars.

    Youngs Literal:
    16And God maketh the two great luminaries, the great luminary for the rule of the day, and the small luminary — and the stars — for the rule of the night;

    KJV
    16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: (he made) the stars also.

    NKJV
    16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. (He made) the stars also

    NASB
    16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; (He made) the stars also.




    0
    View Comment
  72. Thus from the text itself is is clear that God made two great lights on day 4.

    It is also clear that God is the one that made the stars.

    But it is not so clear that God made them on day 4.

    I don’t know if you are SDA – but for SDAs this is very clear – not just because of the text – but also because of what God showed Ellen White when it comes to unfallen worlds in existence before the earth.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  73. BobRyan: Thus from the text itself is is clear that God made two great lights on day 4.It is also clear that God is the one that made the stars. But it is not so clear that God made them on day 4.I don’t know if you are SDA – but for SDAs this is very clear – not just because of the text – but also because of what God showed Ellen White when it comes to unfallen worlds in existence before the earth.in Christ,Bob

    I have questioned several SDA pastors and evengelists about this text, and they also agree with your view.




    0
    View Comment
  74. BobRyan: In all cases the text is clear that “God made two great lights” on day 4… But the “He made” section for stars in “inserted”.

    No matter how many versions of the Bible you quote, none of them says that God created the stars at a different time from the two great lights.

    So my choices appear to believe what the Bible says, or believe what you think it means.




    0
    View Comment
  75. You are free to believe anything you wish.

    I believe the Bible says that on day 4 God made “TWO” lights – not a zillion and two.

    I also believe that on day 1 God made the atmosphere for earth – He did not say “let there be sea” or “let there be the surface of the deep” – those things were already made by God – though they are mentioned on day 1. Yet the day 1 activity speaks specifically to “and let there be an expanse”. Thus not everything mentioned on that day – was also made on that day. Context and content determine the scope of activity for the day.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  76. BobRyan: You are free to believe anything you wish.

    I believe the Bible says that on day 4 God made “TWO” lights – not a zillion and two.

    And you are certainly free not to believe what the Bible actually says–that God made the stars at the same time.




    0
    View Comment
  77. @Al Scott:

    If you believe that God created everything, then at least you are on the right track.

    I believe that the evidence, supported by scripture at large, is overwhelming that God has created everything in the universe. God is also eternal past (and future) and has always been creating something – and will continue, once the sin problem has been dealt with.

    Thus, most of the universe that we see in the night sky has been there for millions or billions of years. It is our earth, moon, and sun (and maybe our sun’s planets) that God spoke into existence about 6,000 years ago. And it was done for us. He made it all and gave it to Adam. Then, in a horribly tragic error, Adam passed the ownership to God’s enemy (Satan) and thus began the great war for Earth in which we today find ourselves engaged.

    The end of that great war for earth, as well as the end of the Great Controversy between Christ and Satan is very near.

    Let us lift up our heads. Our redemption is just around the corner.

    Never in the history of eternity, has there been a time as solemn or portentous as the moments in which we find ourselves today. It is a time for our most earnest reflection on how we relate and respond. Our decisions and choices today have eternal consideration.

    Learn to listen to the “still small voice” for guidance. Get to know your Creator.




    0
    View Comment
  78. Hi Bob and Al:

    I have read your discussion with interest. I posted my theory above somewhere as to whether or not the stars were created on the 4th day.

    I have had a further thought on the subject. Perhaps you can let me know what you think about it.

    During creation, the days began with the darkness–they pretty well had to because that’s all there was until, on the 4th day, the darkness was divided by the light. That means that God would have had to create the sun first, because if He didn’t, the moon would have had no light to reflect. When Moses was watching this God-given video replay and recording a written account of it, he wouldn’t have been able to see the moon was created until the sun came into existence and light was able to reach the moon and the earth–unless God made the moon and the sun together and supernaturally brought the light to the earth at the same instance. Could He not have brought the starlight to the earth at the same time? Remember, when Ellen White had visions she also had an angel guide that spoke to her–perhaps the same thing happened to Moses and the angel guide told him that the stars were created a long time ago, so he included a statement that says God created the stars also.
    It is only a thought, but would fit the scenario. In any case, all three of us believe that God created the stars, the moon and the sun and we believe the sun and moon were created on the 4th day of creation as the Bible states. We are free to conjecture about the stars a little, but we probably won’t get all the actual details until we are with Christ Jesus and He is telling us all about the Creation of the earth. Maybe He will even rerun the video for us that Moses and Ellen saw. What a privilege that will be!

    I think what you gentlemen are actually discussing, in any case, is whether or not the Bible can be taken literally. I personally believe that by-and-large it can be–when God says He created the earth, He did; when He says the sun stood still for Joshua, it did. (I don’t understand the details involved in the sun standing still, but I fully believe that it did.) However there are portions of the scriptures that are symbolic, and there are challenges with the translation of ancient languages. That said, I still believe that there is enough of the Bible for us to read and understand as written to give us the basics of salvation. Details may have to wait. I have full faith in the truth of the Bible and I know that when we study and honestly search it, God is with us to guide us in all truth.

    Can we just allow each other the right to believe as we see fit on this topic? It is not a detail that our salvation hangs on and we certainly have enough to deal with just with this business at LSU at the moment.

    Happy Sabbath.




    0
    View Comment
  79. Hmmm . . . I am wondering where this will end. Is it really the intent of Educate Truth to drive everybody out of the church who doesn’t believe in a literal 7 day creation, 6000 years ago?

    I notice that even the most conservative contributor’s to this site can’t agree on all the details, so where will it end? How narrow are you going to make the definition?

    I think I remember Mrs. White describing how the most vicious persecutors in the end will be from our own brethren in the church. Who is doing the persecuting here?
    Do you really want to be part of that?




    0
    View Comment
  80. A comment on “the stars also”.

    1. Genesis 1:1 clearly states that God created the heaven (plural in Hebrew) and the earth. But it does not say when, except “in the beginning.”
    2. Genesis 1:2 clearly states that there was a formless earth and the Spirit moved upon the face of the waters. Please notice that it does not specifically state WHEN the earth or the waters were created, presumably in the beginning.
    3. Genesis 1:3 clearly states the first specific act of the six day creation, the creation of light. Also notice that that the light source is not identified.
    4. Genesis 1:5 closes with “the evening and the morning were the first day.” Actually word “first” is poor translation. A better word would be “one” (check the Hebrew words for first and one). When the correct word “one” is used, we are given the definition for a “day”. “… the evening and the morning were one day”. The same word was used when man and woman were joined together as “one” flesh.
    5. Genesis 1:16 says “… he made the stars also.” This statement is ambiguous. It could mean he made the stars on day four or the use of the word “also” could indicate that the statement is parenthetical. Although God created them, it did not happen on day four. The parenthetical interpretation would suggest that the stars were made at the time of verse one and before verse three. I favor the latter interpretation, but I could be wrong.
    NOTE: Verse 14 says the lights were to be for establishing “… days …” among other things. Since there is no change in the definition of the day since verse five, it is reasonable to believe that all the days of creation are approximately the same duration as the days we have today, which are of course determined primarily by the “rising” or “setting” of the sun.




    0
    View Comment
  81. Charles: I believe that the evidence, supported by scripture at large, is overwhelming that God has created everything in the universe. God is also eternal past (and future) and has always been creating something – and will continue, once the sin problem has been dealt with.

    If we forget for the moment what we know about the mechanisms of evolution and take just what you said above, that God is eternal and that he is always creating something. I will add that God says he never changes, which implies to me that he never quits creating. I ask you if you accept that as true, then what would you expect to see in nature? Wouldn’t you expect to see that it has existed for a VERY long time, and that it is continually “evolving” as God continues his creative activity? Would you not expect to see evolutionary changes in the fossils documenting God’s activity?

    Just because God did something special 6000 years ago doesn’t mean he didn’t do something special before that, or that he isn’t doing something special now, even today.




    0
    View Comment
  82. Bob Orrick: the evening and the morning were one day”. The same word was used when man and woman were joined together as “one” flesh.

    Hmm . . . This is an interesting point. Adam and Eve obviously did not literally become “one” flesh. That can only be interpreted figuratively as a reference sex. So if the term is figurative in one place, why isn’t it figurative in the creation account as well?




    0
    View Comment
  83. Ron:
    “then what would you expect to see in nature? Wouldn’t you expect to see that it has existed for a VERY long time, and that it is continually “evolving” as God continues his creative activity? Would you not expect to see evolutionary changes in the fossils documenting God’s activity? ”

    No…it doesn’t logically follow that the earth has existed for a VERY long time. How do you come up with that?

    There have been and will continue to be changes in nature–simply because evil takes a stronger hold on it every day, and man is such a poor steward of nature that he is actually destroying it. You can’t lay that at God’s doorstep–nor can you call it evolutionary.

    The theory of evolution tells us that everything is getting better and better, when in actual fact everything is getting worse and worse. (Also a clue that God is not making the changes.) From beautiful Eden to this mess is not God’s fault (or to our own credit) it is the direct result of the entrance of sin. And it certainly doesn’t fit the evolutionary better-and-better model. Surely you should know that by now.




    0
    View Comment
  84. There is more textual evidence that the Genesis account was never intended to be taken literally. In fact, it is impossible to take it literally because Genesis 2:5-9 states specifically that God created Adam before the plants, or even Eden itself.

    Verses 15-18 also makes it clear that the command not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil was given to Adam before Eve was even created. So if you are going to be strictly literal, then the command only applied to Adam. It wasn’t a sin for Eve. The fact that we impute guilt to Eve implies that we don’t really believe that the story is intended to be taken literally.




    0
    View Comment
  85. @Faith:
    The notion that things are getting worse and worse doesn’t accord with reality. If you look at the fossil record, things are getting better. In fact, I can see things getting better just in my short life. Further more, if you think things are getting worse, then you are asserting that Jesus death and salvation was ineffective.
    You also have to deny Mrs. Whites statement that Jesus came at the darkest time for humanity.
    I believe that Jesus did come at the darkest hour, that his death was effective and that the world is a lighter place now than it was when Jesus died.




    0
    View Comment
  86. @Ron:

    God’s ways of creating are unknown to us. He “speaks” things into existence and into life. This is seen over and over in scripture. He does not need a “mechanism”. What “mechanism” was employed when Lazarus was raised back to life after being (“stinking”) dead for three days? What trick does he employ to raise millions back to life when He returns in the very near future.

    Ron: Do you really believe that?
    Then why don’t we follow God’s example?

    As far as I understand, we are all free here to express what we believe as true. I certainly do not pretend to deny that to anyone.

    As to God allowing us to choose? I’ll save that topic for another post – maybe soon. (It is a good topic!)




    0
    View Comment
  87. Faith: No…it doesn’t logically follow that the earth has existed for a VERY long time. How do you come up with that?

    From the Bible.
    1. Genesis 1:1 says the earth was here for a long time before day one.
    2. Genesis 1:4 says that God created the sun moon and stars at the same time and Mrs. White talks about worlds that were in existence before man was created, so our world must have been here before creation week started.
    3. God is eternal, he is the creator, and he never changes. Therefore he must be eternally creating.
    4. There were no predators in Eden, and there were clearly predators by the time of the flood. Where did they come from? Either they evolved from what God previously created, or God created them after the fall. If you insist that God stopped creating then you have to admit evolution. The logic seems pretty simple to me.
    5. If God stopped creating, then it would destroy the sanctity of the Sabbath, because God would no longer be working 6 days a week, and resting the seventh.




    0
    View Comment
  88. Charles: God’s ways of creating are unknown to us. He “speaks” things into existence and into life.

    I’m confused. In the same breath you said we don’t know how God creates, then you said he creates by speaking it into existence. Which is it?




    0
    View Comment
  89. Faith: theistic evolutionists limit His power

    Actually, theistic evolution doesn’t limit God’s power any more than having sex limits God’s power. God created DNA, and he created sex. DNA changes and organisms evolve when they have sex. What is there about that, that is a problem?




    0
    View Comment
  90. EG White

    God placed man under law, a subject of the divine government. God might have created man without the power to transgress; He might have withheld Adam from touching the forbidden fruit; but in that case man would have been a mere automaton. Without freedom of choice, his obedience would have been forced. Such a course would have been contrary to God’s plan, unworthy of man as an intelligent being, and would 20have sustained Satan’s charge of God’s arbitrary rule. {EP 19.4}
    From Eternity Past, p. 20.1 (EGW)
    God made man upright, with no bias toward evil. He presented before him the strongest possible inducements to be true. Obedience was the condition of eternal happiness and access to the tree of life. {EP 20.1}
    From Eternity Past, p. 20.2 (EGW)
    The home of our first parents was to be a pattern for other homes as their children should go forth to occupy the earth. Men in their pride delight in magnificent and costly edifices and glory in the works of their own hands, but God placed Adam in a garden. This was a lesson for all time—true happiness is found not in the indulgence of pride and luxury, but in communion with God through His created works. Pride and ambition are never satisfied, but those who are truly wise will find pleasure in the enjoyment God has placed within the reach of all. {EP 20.2}
    From Eternity Past, p. 20.3 (EGW)
    To the dwellers in Eden was committed the care of the garden, “to dress it and to keep it.” God appointed labor as a blessing to man, to occupy his mind, to strengthen his body, and to develop his faculties. In mental and physical activity Adam found one of the highest pleasures of his holy existence. Those who regard work as a curse, attended though it be with weariness and pain, are cherishing an error. The rich often look down upon the working classes, but this is at variance with God’s purpose in creating man. Adam was not to be idle. Our Creator, who understands what is for man’s happiness, appointed Adam his work. The true joy of life is found only by working men and women. The Creator has prepared no place for stagnating indolence. {EP 20.3}
    From Eternity Past, p. 20.4 (EGW)
    The holy pair were not only children under the fatherly care of God, but students receiving instruction from the all-wise Creator. They were visited by angels and were granted communion with their Maker with no obscuring veil between. They were full of vigor imparted by the tree of life, their intellectual power but little less than that of the angels. The laws of nature were opened to their minds by the infinite Framer and 21Upholder of all. With every living creature, from the mighty leviathan among the waters to the insect mote that floats in the sunbeam, Adam was familiar. He had given to each its name, and he was acquainted with the nature and habits of all. On every leaf of the forest, in every shining star, in earth and air and sky, God’s name was written. The order and harmony of creation spoke of infinite wisdom and power. {EP 20.4}
    From Eternity Past, p. 21.1 (EGW)
    So long as they remained loyal to the divine law they would be constantly gaining new treasures of knowledge, discovering fresh springs of happiness, and obtaining clearer conceptions of the immeasurable unfailing love of God. {EP 21.1}




    0
    View Comment
  91. Ron: Actually, theistic evolution doesn’t limit God’s power any more than having sex limits God’s power. God created DNA, and he created sex. DNA changes and organisms evolve when they have sex. What is there about that, that is a problem?

    Ron, I am not a biologist, but can you explain how organisms evolve having sex? Do asexual organisms evolve in a different way?




    0
    View Comment
  92. Ron: “1. Genesis 1:1 says the earth was here for a long time before day one.

    No, it doesn’t–it says “in the beginning” how does that translate to “a long time before day one. You are really stretching for that one.

    “2. Genesis 1:4 says that God created the sun moon and stars at the same time and Mrs. White talks about worlds that were in existence before man was created, so our world must have been here before creation week started.”

    Mrs. White states that God was not indebted to pre-existing matter to create the earth…He spoke and it stood fast. She also states that He made the foundations of the earth and dressed it within 6 literal days.

    That other worlds were in existance when ours was created doesn’t mean that the world must have been here before creation. What kind of logic is that? Looks like swiss-cheese-logic to me.

    “There were no predators in Eden, and there were clearly predators by the time of the flood. Where did they come from?”

    Honestly, Ron, don’t you know anything at all about the earth’s history? The predators came when sin entered and the animals, as well as man, became sinful in nature. Previously to that all creatures were vegetarians. Change is not equated with evolution.

    You claim that things are getting better and better–what a crock! Species are and have been dying out because of pollution and direct intervention by man. Is that better? Man is becoming more and more diseased and weaker as time goes on. Ellen White says that every generation farther from the tree of life is more and more degenerated. Is that getting better? Sin is taking a stronger and stronger hold on this earth–evil is surrounding us more every day. Is that getting better?

    Our very institutions that were established to teach truth are now teaching error–the error of evolution–which you, by the way, are trying to promote. Is that getting better? No. Decidedly not.

    “5. If God stopped creating, then it would destroy the sanctity of the Sabbath, because God would no longer be working 6 days a week, and resting the seventh.”

    And with that we are handed the biggest piece of swiss-cheese-logic of them all. Good Grief!

    The Sabbath was instituted to celebrate and remember that God had finished creation on this earth. Get it?




    0
    View Comment
  93. Ron,

    In Genesis 1:5 God called the light “Day” and the darkness “night”. But one “day” is the sum of the darkness and the light. Please note that the words “Day” and “day” in verse five are translated from the same Hebrew word.

    Surely the terms evening and morning as well as their actual occurrence are items that are obvious to almost every one. Therefore since we determine the length of the day by the “going” and “coming” of the sun, evening and morning, how could could this be figurative? The definition of the literal day does not change throughout the scriptures. The definition of the word “day” without modifiers does have various meanings, but evening and morning make a tight restriction on the meaning of the word “day”.

    If there is a figurative meaning perhaps the it would found in “one flesh”. But I do not believe that for the following reasons.
    1. “one flesh” is obviously the sum of one man and one woman. They are defined by God as “one” unit.
    2. This is confirmed by Jesus as recorded in Mark 10: 2-12. “from the beginning”, the perfect world, a man and his wife were to be considered “one flesh”, by God’s definition, not ours.




    0
    View Comment
  94. Faith: The predators came when sin entered and the animals, as well as man, became sinful in nature.

    To say that predators came as a consequence of sin does not say anything about HOW they came. Did they evolve from what God previously created, or did God create them in response to sin?




    0
    View Comment

Comments are closed.