@Eddie: I think you’re missing the point. Believing in a …

Comment on Former LSU student letter reveals professor’s agenda by Shane Hilde.

@Eddie: I think you’re missing the point. Believing in a recent, six day creation is not a requirement for salvation; however, rejecting it could certainly lead to one losing their salvation.

No one is suggesting that this is a requirement for salvation. It’s revealed truth from God and happens to be foundational to everything else in the Bible. In other words, if God did not create the heaven and earth in six days and destroy the world with a flood, why would anything else in the Bible be true?

Ellen White said, “The rejection of light darkens the mind and hardens the heart, so that it is easier for them to take the next step in sin and to reject still clearer light, until at last their habits of wrongdoing become fixed” (PP 404). It’s possible to believe in the truth’s espoused in the Bible without believing in Genesis 1-11, but it’s a huge step in the wrong direction and only sets the believer up for doubt and ultimate loss of faith in God’s word.

Shane Hilde Also Commented

Former LSU student letter reveals professor’s agenda
@CBond: I had him for my biology teacher in ’04-’05 at LSU. There was no confusion about what he believed or what was being taught in his class, and that was biology 101.

Former LSU student letter reveals professor’s agenda
@Ron: Keep in mind your presuppositions are what is creating the dichotomy you present. You’re assuming the mainstream interpretation of the data to be true. You’re accepting mainstream interpretation over divine revelation, which maybe fine for you, but it is not the Seventh-day Adventist hermeneutic. God’s word is our ultimate standard of truth in all that it touches upon.

Recent Comments by Shane Hilde

PUC responds
@Ariel: We’re not advocating that students shouldn’t be taught about opinions that are not Seventh-day Adventist. Evolution should be taught. The issue is how it is taught.

An apology to PUC
@Mary A. Jane: Despite how the information may be presented in other courses does not change the way in which this particular lecture. At this point the professor and PUC do not want to divulge the information on their other classes, so we’re left with the bad egg class.

An apology to PUC
@Mary A. Jane: The lecture on origins was the first of a series within the class dealing with the issue, or the lecture on origins was just one class in the series of classes of different topics? As far as I’ve been told by PUC’s statement and from a student in the class, there was no mention that there would be a follow up course. This is not to say that one will not occur, but if PUC was really concerned about context I’m really surprised it failed to mention any follow up course that would have brought some context to the lecture given in isolation.

By the way, the contention has nothing to do with Dr. Ness’s faith. This is just a red herring issue. His faith, Christianity, belief in God, etc, are not on the table despite what many here may think.

I may not know as much as you about the class, so please inform me what the next lecture in the series will be in regard to origins. When did they announce in the class there would be a follow up? Why wasn’t this information made public in PUC’s statement? Strange they would leave out such important information.

An apology to PUC
@Mary A. Jane: No, we’re not stating that at all. What gave you that impression? Did you read this statement, “While it is reasonable to present students with theories in science that conflict with our beliefs, how reasonable is it to just leave it at that–a string of conflicts with little, if any, resolution?”

Evolution should most definitely be taught in our schools, but within the context of what we believe to be true and the current evidence that supports those beliefs.

New NAD president: ‘I love you’ doesn’t mean we won’t deal with issues
@Professor Kent:

In Genesis 7:19, God says “[The waters] rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered.” You insist that “every inch of the earth was covered,” but to be “internally consistent,” you need to advance only 14 verses to Genesis 8:9, which reads, “But the dove could find no place to set its feet because there was water over all the surface of the earth; so it returned to Noah in the ark” (NIV). And from Genesis 8:5, we know that the tops of the mountains were visible 40 days before this! So if you are honest in being “internally consistent” with your interpretation of the coverage of water, you would recognize that you have been deceived. That, or perhaps you are simply intellectually dishonest.

There really isn’t any need to “insist” that every inch of earth was covered. The Bible makes it absolutely clear that it was covered.

“And the waters have been very very mighty on the earth, and covered are all the high mountains which [are] under the whole heavens; fifteen cubits upwards have the waters become mighty, and the mountains are covered;” Genesis 7:19, 20

Not only did the water cover all the high mountains by about 15 cubits, but there is the absent qualifying verses. Thus we’re left with a simple, but clear statement that all the earth was covered by water. Is there any verse to the contrary?

Now it appears you’re claiming that because the Bible says there were mountain tops showing 40 days before Noah sent out the dove this somehow shows that the earth was not completely covered, right? How you didn’t mention that in the beginning of chapter 8 it says:

The fountains of the deep and the windows of heaven were also stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained. And the waters receded continually from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters decreased.” Genesis 8:2, 3

The waters were receding and decreased. So the water level goes down, revealing the mountain tops. Dove is sent out but finds no life yet.

In regard to whether the all the animals died on the earth with exception to those on the ark, the Bible says this:

“And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man. 22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit[a] of life, all that was on the dry land, died. 23 So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth.” Genesis 7:21-23

This does not contradict 7:4, which says, “for after other seven days I am sending rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and have wiped away all the substance that I have made from off the face of the ground.” Other translations use earth instead of ground. Did he wipe away all the animals on the face of the earth? Yes. And what exactly did he mean when he said face of the earth? It’s all clarified in verses 21-23.

You’ve pointed out no inconsistencies in the idea that all the land on earth was entirely covered by water and that only the land animals, birds, surface animals died.