Dr. Geraty Affirms the Literal Creation Week?
@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

---

Dr. Geraty Affirms the Literal Creation Week?
@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
www.DetectingDesign.com

---

Dr. Geraty Affirms the Literal Creation Week?
@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
www.DetectingDesign.com

---

Liberty & Health Alliance – An Appeal for Action
God gave rational empirical “scientific” evidence to believe Noah’s message.

Many of the amazing discoveries of medical science in our day, to include the gift of vaccines and an understanding as to how the human immune system actually works, are not opposed to the Scriptures or the Spirit of Prophecy (Ellen White did not opposed the use of vaccines). They are amazing gifts from God that should not be ignored or disregarded.

In this same line, Barbara O’Neill has made numerous false and misleading claims regarding various medical therapies – particularly regarding the treatment of serious conditions like cancer. She does get some things right, but the things she gets wrong significantly overshadow the things she gets right and have significant hurt people. For example, she wraps people who have cancer (which she falsely claims is caused by fungal infections, promoted by antiobiotics and other pharmaceuticals – Link) in towels soaked in baking soda as a means to treat their cancers when such treatments do not help cancer patients in the least. (Link). Yet, she she makes a lot of money peddling these and other such worthless “therapies” to the gullible. She speaks with great confidence and assurance about things that she doesn’t remotely understand since she has no medical training. It’s not the GC or Church leadership or physicians like me making money off of “Big Pharma”. Rather, it’s the snake-oil salesmen like Peter McCullough and Barbara O’Neill, and others like them, who are making quite a lot of money selling their worthless natural remedies and conspiracy theories to their worldwide audiences. Consider that her Misty Mountain Health Retreat near Kempsey charged clients as much as $2,450 per person for a one-week stay and $8,800 for two people for two weeks. Her estimated net worth today is ~$51 Million (Link). Clearly, she’s done very well for herself…

It’s not like I’m opposed to natural remedies that actually work, of course. I’m just opposed to those who promote “natural remedies” just because they’re supposedly “natural” when they don’t actually do what they’re claimed to do by those who have no understanding of medical science who make money selling their “remedies” to the gullible and the desperate. If you want to see some natural remedies promoted by someone who actually does known what he’s talking about, look up the YouTube videos put out by the well-known pulmonologist Dr. Roger Seheult.

---

Liberty & Health Alliance – An Appeal for Action
While recommending the vaccines, the vaccine statements clearly left the decision to vaccinate, or not, to the individual. They had nothing to do with government funding (yet another conspiracy theory). These statements were issued in an honest effort to save lives, not to make money. The “medical minds” at the BoT Symposium generally support anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists like Peter McCullough who are known for promoting misleading or downright false claims regarding the pandemic and the mRNA vaccines.

---

Liberty & Health Alliance – An Appeal for Action
Pastor E.L. has also written (FB Post) an excellent explanation in defense of the affirmation statement and our denomination’s position on vaccines.

“The assumedly troublesome wording commonly highlighted concerning this issue is a misreading of intent in context, without trying to understand the sense in which it can be understood as harmonious with the rest of the statement which strongly affirms individual conscience. A charitable reading first attempts to understand what someone says in a sense that is harmonious, rather than immediately assuming they intend to contradict themselves.

The trajectory of the context in the Reaffirmation Statement suggests that when it asserts, “Claims of religious liberty are not used appropriately in objecting to government mandates or employer programs designed to protect the health and safety of their communities,” this is likely because the church has not established a doctrinal position on vaccines that would require uniform adherence among its members. If it had, such a stance would then necessitate the church to defend it as a matter of religious liberty.

The issue of vaccination is multifaceted, and adopting a definitive for or against position within church doctrine would infringe on the rights of those who hold opposing views. Instead, the document consistently emphasizes that this is a matter of individual conscience and underscores the church’s support for such personal discernment. Accordingly, it states: “We recognize that at times our members will have personal concerns and even conscientious convictions that go beyond the teachings and positions of the Church. In these cases, the Church’s religious liberty leaders will do what they can to provide support and counsel on a personal basis, not as a Church position, even at times assisting members in writing their own personal accommodation requests to employers and others.”

In essence, while the church has not elevated this issue to a doctrinal level requiring institutional defense, it remains committed to supporting individual religious convictions to the greatest extent possible. Personal convictions are respected and defended, even though the church as a whole has not taken—and could not reasonably be expected to take—a uniform doctrinal position on the matter.

To draw an analogy, Seventh-day Adventists could not argue that wearing head coverings in the workplace is a religious liberty issue because it is not a doctrinal requirement within the SDA faith, even though it is mentioned in the Bible. Instead, they could only frame it as a matter of personal conviction if they interpret the biblical instruction as still applicable today. While individual SDAs who support head coverings may personally view it as a religious liberty concern, the distinction lies in the fact that religious liberty claims are typically based on doctrines that a religion universally requires of all its adherents.

In contrast, Muslims can assert that head coverings are a doctrinal religious liberty matter because it is a doctrinally mandated practice within Islam. This highlights the difference between personal convictions and doctrines that are formally upheld by a religious institution when speaking of “religious liberty.”

---

Liberty & Health Alliance – An Appeal for Action
Pastor Wyatt Allen (one of the founders of the Liberty & Health Alliance) wrote in a FB Comment:

Two things your article lacks are compassion and understanding. The first would lead to the second. Should I have more time tomorrow, I’ll try to be more specific and why I make this claim. Though anybody reading it would see the lack of compassion. I think the lack of understanding essentially boils down to misrepresenting what we’re saying. COVID and the mandates might be passed. But unless we learn from our mistakes during this time (do you say the church made no mistakes?) we will be unprepared to help in the next crisis. And when we are unprepared to help in a meaningful way, it really does hurt people. Actual people. As a minister of the gospel, I have seen the tears, I have heard the pleas, I have witnessed the freedom being ripped away. We can theorize and write articles all day long about Liberty. But until we actually stand up for it, all that comes across is coldness.

My response:

You seem to suggest that I’m opposed to religious liberty and that I don’t care for those who suffered. How can you know this? I mean, I am a strong supporter of religious liberty and have experienced personal serious attacks on my own religious convictions. While in the army I was brought up for court martial twice for refusing orders to work on Sabbath in ways that I thought were opposed to God’s commands regarding the Sabbath. I was threatened with jail time, the loss of my career, and financial damages. So, you see, I’m very much aware of how it feels to be personally threated for my own religious convictions. I also understand why someone who is opposed to vaccines would blame the Church for a lack of support during the vaccine mandates.

It’s not that I don’t understand. It’s that I think that such efforts to blame the Church and the Vaccine Statements are misdirected since these Vaccine Statements repeatedly and specifically support individual choice in this matter. Recommendations regarding medical interventions, like vaccines, do not undermine personal religious liberties or the Church’s support for such liberties. The claims of the Liberty & Health Alliance to the contrary simply do not make sense to me. Even if the Church had no vaccine statements at all, I fail to see how this would have helped anyone during the vaccine mandates.

________

Additional responses to other comments from Wyatt on FB:

Wyatt Allen: You’re also asking Charles Downing (not sure of his medical background) to explain to me that the “so-called vaccines” have too many adverse reactions. You see, right there you’re showing your hand. The reason why you’re so passionate against the Vaccine Statements of the Church is because you truly believe them to be harmful and evil. While I sympathize with why you feel this way, consider that I feel the very same way for the opposite reasons. I saw ICUs filled with the very sick and the dying during the pandemic, the significant majority of whom were the unvaccinated. Several of my own workers who refused to get vaccinated ended up in the ICU and two suffered permanent injuries so severe that they can no longer work full time. Many more from my own church and community ended up in the ICU for the same reason. More than a dozen of my own family friends died because they didn’t get vaccinated. My brother-in-law, the well-known pulmonologist Dr. Roger Seheult saw many many more die while holding their hands in his ICU in S. Cal – even some who were young and vegan and otherwise healthy. So, yes, we are both very passionate about this topic. It’s one of the reasons why I try to force myself to be as objective as possible when I talk about this topic.

The reason why I disagree with you and Charles here is because I think you have a misunderstanding of the risk/benefit ratio for the mRNA vaccines and vaccines in general. You don’t understand the nature of VAERS (which is maintained by the NIH and the CDC by the way) since you don’t seem to understand the difference between correlation and causation. The VAERS database is used to sort out this difference. The claim of Charles that the spike protein produced in response to the mRNA vaccines sends the human immune system into “overdrive” and “taxes” and “weakens” it is false. This isn’t how the human immune system works. The spike proteins are broken down into small pieces called “antigens”, which are then presented to T- and B-cells so as to educate them to know what to attack in the future. This process happens every day and does not tax or weaken the immune system in the least. I mean, consider that a C19 infection would produce far far more spike proteins throughout the entire body for a much longer period of time. The mRNA vaccines, in comparison, are self-limited and are largely localized. Charles’ claim that the vaccines have produced a 40% spike in cancer rates and “turbo cancers” is also a false claim based on the claims of conspiracy theorists. I’m an anatomic and clinical pathologist with a subspecialty in blood disorders. I diagnose cancers every day. That’s what I do. I can tell you that there has been no increase in cancers associated with the mRNA vaccines. Beyond this, there is no mechanism by which the mRNA vaccines could produce such a spike in cancer rates. As far as Charles’ claim that the vaccines were not “thoroughly studied”, this is also a false statement. The mRNA vaccines went through all of the standard steps for vaccine testing and approval – to include double-blinded placebo-controlled animal and human trials with great success. There were no increased deaths, much less “25 deaths”, and the “adverse reactions” were minor and not beyond the expected rate in the 70,000 human volunteers. Also, the mRNA technology itself is not new, but has been studied now for over 30 years. It’s just that all of the necessary technological information came together at just the right time for the mRNA vaccines to make it to the general public soon after the pandemic hit. That’s just the nature and usefulness of the mRNA technology which Charles doesn’t seem to understand.

Conrad Vine Continues to Attack Church Leadership

Dr. Peter McCullough’s COVID-19 and Anti-Vaccine Theories

_____________

Wyatt Allen: I’m not sure what important question(s) of yours I failed to answer? Please do point these out to me again so that I won’t inadvertently skip over something that is important to you.

Regarding your current question, of course I make mistakes all the time. In my job as a pathologist I try to be extremely careful to limit my mistakes, but mistakes do happen since we are all human and subject to error. I often wish I had a “redo” button available to me so that I could go back in time and fix some of my mistakes.

I know that you believe that your argument (regarding all vaccines I think) is based on the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy – and I respect that even though I don’t agree with you here. However, you are promoting your anti-vaccine position since you have presented numerous arguments against vaccines. I think these arguments are based on mistaken concepts and ideas, but, again, this is the reason for personal and religious liberty as long as these liberties don’t interfere with those of another.

I also understand that you want to plead for those who cannot effectively plead for themselves. I’m trying to do the same thing. I think that the misinformation presented by you and many others (particularly those like Dr. Peter McCulough) have caused untold injuries and deaths to many who would have been saved by being vaccinated. I also have no doubt there were those who misused the Vaccine Statements of the Church regarding mandates. While this shouldn’t have happened, again, I fail to understand how this is the fault of the Church? The Church has published many statements that have been misused. The same is true of many of the statements and claims found in the Bible itself. Is this the fault of the Bible? Should the Bible be rewritten because some of its language is confusing and difficult to properly understand by the many who have misinterpreted and misused it?

You keep repeating that the Vaccine Statements “exalt peer-reviewed scientific literature to the level of the Bible” – and that if I don’t see it this way that I should read them again. I’ve read them dozens of times and I still don’t see how you could possibly make this amazing, even shocking, claim. None of the leaders of the SDA Church would ever think to suggest such an idea – verbally or in writing. Certainly, no Christian physician or scientist would promote such a concept either. So, where are you getting this idea? The Vaccine Statements themselves make no such claim – not even close.

_______________

Wyatt Allen: The claim that the Vaccine Statements elevate peer-review literature equal to the Bible simply isn’t true. This claim is particularly shocking to me. I’m not sure how anyone could interpret these statements in this way? These statements are not statements of Fundamental Beliefs or doctrinal statements at all. They are simply general *recommendations*, not decrees or anything like that, regarding advances in medical science. That’s it. They specifically note that they are not to be considered doctrinal or in any way binding regarding the conscience of the individual – that the final decision is and should be with the individual regarding such issues.
Yes, words do matter, but in this case, I fail to see how your claims regarding the Church’s Vaccine Statements are valid or helpful moving forward since I fail to see how these Statements undermine individual religious liberty.

________________

Weston Greenwood: One can do both you know. I also advocate for both. I strongly believe the mRNA vaccines were a miraculous gift from God that saved millions of lives and prevented many many more hospitalizations and long-term injuries. At the same time, I’m also a strong supporter of personal and religious liberty – particularly for those who disagree with me. In the same way, the Vaccine Statements promote the benefits of vaccination while, at the same time, noting that one is perfectly free to disagree – and that this decision should take precedence.

________________

Weston Greenwood: The Church did bring this to a vote via the delegates at the last GC Session. It’s just that this vote went against you.

Liberty & Health Alliance – An Appeal for Action

Again, if an employer bases his/her decision to mandate vaccination on the Church’s Vaccine Statements, then that employer is misusing these statements – which isn’t the fault of the Church.

And yes, just because the Church does not stand in the way of someone who wants to get vaccinated, and even encourages this, doesn’t mean that it, therefore, stands in the way of someone who doesn’t want to get vaccinated. Claiming otherwise makes no sense to me.

________________

Wyatt Allen: You’re essentially saying that, “Any outsider who reads the ADCOM statement will see it as binding”.

If someone does read it that way, they aren’t reading it correctly because that’s not what it says. It says that while the SDA Church, as an organization, is not inherently opposed to vaccines and recognizes their usefulness, it remains with the individual and individual conscience as to the final decision to get or not to get vaccinated – that it is not an issue of morality, is not a matter of salvation, and is therefore not doctrinal. That’s what it says. Those who read it otherwise for the purposes of enforcing mandates based on such Statements are clearly misusing them. And, obviously, such misuses are not the fault of the Church.

Also, contrary to your claim, the Church has not elevated peer-reviewed literature published in scientific journals to the level of Scripture. That’s a completely false and completely unfair claim – particularly directed at medical professionals like me who recognize the usefulness of vaccines while, at the same time, recognizing the final authority of the Bible in all questions of faith. It’s just that I don’t see where the Bible speaks against vaccines anywhere in its pages. The same is true for the Spirit of Prophecy.

---

Conrad Vine Continues to Attack Church Leadership
I think that there can be a reasonable combination of the best of modern medicine as well as the best of healthful living and natural remedies such as exercise, sunlight, vitamin D, “forest bathing”, good sleep, vegan or at least a vegetarian diet, etc…

---