Hi Bob and Al: I have read your discussion with interest. …

Comment on Dr. Geraty Affirms the Literal Creation Week? by Faith.

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.

Faith Also Commented

Dr. Geraty Affirms the Literal Creation Week?
Thanks for your kind comment. I really am enjoying thinking about Creation. Not that I think everyone has to accept what I am thinking if it isn’t specifically said in the Bible.

“You make some good points above – but consider this; on day 1 “evening and morning were the first day”.”

I have thought of that, just never addressed it.

I am not sure what “light” was created on the first day. I have heard some people say it was the light from the Lord Himself as He was near to the earth while He created it. I have also thought about how the New Jerusalem is going to be lighted up by the glory of God. Could that be what the light was on the earth at that time? It would also provide an evening and a morning depending on the relation between the planet as it rotated and the glorious light.

Another thought is that the light was Created on the first day, according to the bible. Or, perhaps the Lord made a temporary light that He used until He saw fit to create the sun, and moon. I would need to review the part about Creation in EGW as well as the Bible to add anything more sensible to these thoughts.

What do you think, Bob?

Dr. Geraty Affirms the Literal Creation Week?
Sorry, Ron, I’ve had all the swiss-cheese I can take for one day.

Dr. Geraty Affirms the Literal Creation Week?
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?

Recent Comments by Faith

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

Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
Mr Taylor,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
David Read said:

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

Hi David,

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

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

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

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

God Bless you, David.

Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
Hi Sean and Bill,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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