Video show LSU undermining church doctrine

These videos were anonymously sent to Educate Truth. In the interest of transparency, we are posting them here for you to review and critique.

Keep in mind the president of La Sierra University was made aware of the contents of these classes in Nov. 2009. Compare the statements from these videos with those made in LSU’s advertisement in the Pacific Union Recorder.

UPDATE: Warren C. Trenchard requested that his lecture be removed from Educate Truth. He told Educate Truth that if his lecture was not taken down he would take whatever action necessary to make sure it was.  He claimed that it was unethical and illegal to have this video posted without his express permission – permission he was not willing to grant to Educate Truth or even to the one(s) who produced the video.  He did not provide additional reasons for his request.

In this video, Dr. Webster says that a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 is “not particularly helpful,” and suggests that higher critical methods of interpretation may be helpful.

The following is a short 3 minute expert from the lecture showing Dr. John Webster explaining how the Genesis account shouldn’t be taken too literally.

.

Later on, during this same lecture, Dr. Warren Harvey Johns of Loma Linda University, concludes his final thoughts regarding Genesis along the lines of “temple theology” where the creation week described in the Bible is simply a culminating or inaugural week celebrating the vast periods of creation that came before (similar to a graduation ceremony).

Please note that the ardent young-life creationist Warren Leroy Johns, though having a similar name,  is very much opposed to the views of Warren H. Johns as presented in this video clip…

[The rest of the video of these two lectures has been pulled until it can be properly edited to meet the requirements of Fair Use Law.]

Syllabus by louiebishop64

Share on Facebook6Pin on Pinterest0Share on LinkedIn0Tweet about this on TwitterDigg thisShare on Google+0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Print this pageEmail this to someone

229 thoughts on “Video show LSU undermining church doctrine

  1. We knew the biology department promoted the theory of evolution, but now it’s clear, at least from the Dean of the School of Religion, that the religion department, in part, is undermining the historicity of the Genesis account of creation also.

    Look at who’s teaching this class! Ben Clausen says he believes in a literal creation, but states there is no evidence for it. This guy is working for GRI. Can you believe it? He said that in the class. How on earth does this class bolster students faith in the biblical creation?




    0
    View Comment
  2. More attacks. Can’t help yourself, can you! I haven’t had the time to watch the video but have heard Clausen speak and I have only heard support for creation and the church’s beliefs. Just because he can’t prove creation like you and Sean and others here are convinced is possible does’nt mean he is wrong, inappropriate, stealing, undermining the church’s stated beliefs, lying, and all that venom you guys spew. It’s all hate talk.

    So it comes down to this. Teachers at our colleges can now expect “spies” in th classroom to make a criminal case of anything that can be misinterpreted. You guys are a piece of work.




    0
    View Comment
  3. I’m disturbed by the sophistry on display in this first video.

    The formulation given (that knowledge = justified, (and) true, belief) seems both self-serving and over-reaching. Further, it violates the consistency principle, since the speaker goes on to say that certainty is not knowledge and that certainty is not even possible (yet he seems certain that his principle of non-contradiction is true). He goes on to say that knowledge changes over time, that what we thought was true yesterday we “know” today to be false. But if it is false, how then could it have been true? If it is false, it was never true. It could have been “justified” previously, but can never have been true, and therefore cannot have been knowledge according to his formula.

    I’m also disturbed by the quoting of E G White to the effect that the truth changes over time (which is not what she said) without giving any reference to her use of the term “the eternal verities” and similar terms, and what these portend.

    For example, in Acts of the Apostles, page 64, we read:

    When the disciples first heard the words of Christ, they felt their need of Him. They sought, they found, they followed Him. They were with Him in the temple, at the table, on the mountainside, in the field. They were as pupils with a teacher, daily receiving from Him lessons of ETERNAL TRUTH.

    Hmmm, eternal truth that changes? I doubt that is what she was trying to convey. Leaving out such essential data is, in the scientific context, a lie.

    These students are being set up by their teachers who, far from having in mind a free-ranging enquiry into the truth, have in mind a specific conclusion. A conclusion which is not truth or knowledge, but merely in conformance with their own opinion.

    This is not even education, let alone an Adventist education.

    It is only indoctrination.

    Regards
    Denver




    0
    View Comment
  4. The first speaker reminded me of the following anecdote from Mrs. White:

    A mother asked her daughter of ten years if she enjoyed the exercise, and also, “What did the minister say?” Said the little girl “He said, and he said, and he said, and he didn’t say anything.” Now, we do not want any such account of our labor as that. We want the very best of training for the work that we can possibly have ourselves, so that we can make a success in teaching others the things that we have learned.– TSS 111, 112. {CSW 169.1}

    The second speaker errs on the 490-year period of judges, between Exodus and Saul’s coronation. He needs to read 1 Kings 6:1.

    And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which [is] the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD. (1 Kings 6:1)

    He also says the Bible does not give the number of years that Saul reigned, and claims the Bible left a hole there. He needs to read Acts chapter 13. Specifically this verse:

    And afterward they desired a king: and God gave unto them Saul the son of Cis, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, by the space of forty years. (Acts 13:21)

    I can also refute, Biblically, many parts of his chronology. If he is a leading chronologist in our church, we are not doing well at Biblical knowledge. The Bible specifically gives the number of years of Saul’s reign, but he claims it does not. Has he read the New Testament? Any chronologist would immediately notice the mention of passage of years, especially if he has not previously found a particular figure that he thought the Bible should have. (At least, I speak for myself, as I would certainly have noticed–and did years ago.) It seems he has not read the book of Acts as much as Josephus.

    I’d say it’s small wonder that he holds to a non-biblical view of Creation, considering he is not well-versed in the Bible. The fact that he is a theologian counts against him in this situation. He should be able to do better than this.

    Erik




    0
    View Comment
  5. It is interesting that the very premise Fritz Guy uses to challenge our current “absolute knowledge” is not necessarily used to challenge science’s current “absolute knowledge”. In challenging others thoughts, we should apply the same principles to critiquing our own thoughts.

    Also, it is interesting that statements of Ellen White are used to promote a thought process somewhat different from the general tone of her writings. Some scientists do the same thing with recent findings. There seems to be a refusal by some religionists and scientists to look at “findings” that don’t fit in with their pre-suppositions.

    Transparency should always be the goal, not only in someone else’s beliefs, but also in our own.

    “Beginning at Genesis, they give up that which they deem questionable, and their minds lead on, for Satan will lead to any length they may follow in their criticism, and they see something to doubt in the whole Scriptures. Their faculties of criticism become sharpened by exercise, and they can rest on nothing with a certainty. You try to reason with these men, but your time is lost. They will exercise their power of ridicule even upon the Bible. They even become mockers, and they would be astonished if you put it to them in that light.” 1 Selected Messages, p. 18

    May the God of the Bible grant us strength to follow Him. The prophecies & histories of the Word have stood the test of time and infidel – we can trust It.




    0
    View Comment
  6. I remember that, when Shane first mentioned Warren Johns and his Temple Theology, I thought there must be some mistake. I owe Shane an apology.

    This is [edit] nonsense. This theory of seven 490 year cycles is nothing but wierd numerology. I know for a fact that Warren Johns knows that there are hundreds of published chronologies, all of which disagree on major points, like whether Israel was in Egypt for 215 years or 430 years. People disagree about when the exodus took place, and everything else. To jump into this confused welter of conflicting calculations and say, “here are 7 cycles is 490 years” is just arbitrary and ad hoc, and really a species of numerology.

    Even some of things he said in the space of 20 minutes didn’t fit with his theory. If the Jews didn’t write this stuff down until the second century AD, presumably they must have known that the world didn’t end in 586 BC. By that time, another major temple had been built and also destroyed (in 70 AD.) Why would they reckon 586 BC the end of the world? If the Jews of the Second Century AD were creating a series of seven cycles, then why wouldn’t they end more recently? Did they believe that their most recent temple, also very grand and monumental, somehow didn’t count for anything?

    Obviously, there’s no Adventist context whatsoever to Johns’ theory. He doesn’t mention Ellen White and effectively puts Josephus above the Bible itself. But guess what? A chronology based upon Josephus’ begats (Antiquities, Book 1, Ch. 3, par. 4) would not fit Johns’ numerology. Josephus used more of the Septuagint data for the ages of the fathers at the time they begat their sons (rather than Masoretic data). Using Josephus numbers or Septuagint numbers ends up with a chronology several centuries longer than the second century Jewish chronology Johns refers to (which is only 12 years different from Ussher). And Johns understands this perfectly well, but he’s cherry-picking data to fit his surreal theory. I’m embarrassed for him.




    0
    View Comment
  7. Dear Geanna:

    I’m not sure I understand you. You consider it “hate talk” to call falsehood by its right name? Trust me, the godly and consecrated among us dare not keep silent in the face of these attacks on the Holy Word of God. Most assuredly it is not “hatred” to correct error and point out its utter incompatibility with the core of the Christian message. Purely and simply, there is no room for Darwinian evolution in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. It removes the need for a Savior and legitimizes the brutal, merciless process of natural selection as the means by which nature and humanity make progress.

    How can you justify any Adventist–or any Christian, for that matter–being employed to teach such subversion of the Bible and of God’s redeeming grace?

    “Spies,” you say? I call them accountability enforcers. Classroom lectures are not private, any more than is a sermon I preach from the pulpit. If I, as a credentialed pastor, deny what Scripture, Ellen White, and the Seventh-day Adventist Church clearly teach, I can rightly expect protest. We can praise God there are men and women, college students and others, daring to speak up when the Word of God and the salvation of souls is at stake.

    God bless!

    Pastor Kevin Paulson




    0
    View Comment
  8. Pastor Paulsen, Thank you so much for your support. Why are there not hundreds or even thousands of other SDA pastors contributing to this website? [edit] I would appreciate your opinion.




    0
    View Comment
  9. This is Greek evolutionary philosophy at it’s highest! We cannot allow such false, divisive teachings to be taught at our institutions. This is a deliberate plan to subvert our SDAs beliefs and integrate us with the secular, mainline, non-biblical Christian churches. We must continue to speak up and expose this false endeavour. Thanks, Shane. Those that lie and attempt to cover up these erroneous teachings are just as guilty as the promoters of this falsehood. I will continue to preach out and make my voice heard against such errors in our church. Let us continue to do our part in exposing the errors and God will certainly do his part.




    0
    View Comment
  10. Teachers at our colleges can now expect “spies” in th classroom to make a criminal case of anything that can be misinterpreted. You guys are a piece of work.

    Hi Geanna. I hope all is well.

    This video was not produced by “spies” as you call them. They were produced by the university. And they tell the story. Fritz Guy clearly demonstrates that he trusts current philosophy much more than divine inspiration. The man should have never taught in one of our universities. He essentially says that current “knowledge” is the judge of past prophetic inspiration. Wo who do I believe, Guys knowledge, or another like him who disagrees with him. Human reasoning is not as dependable as divine inspiration.

    It’s all hate talk.

    Please Geanna. You can’t start name calling someone just because they disagree with you or one of your mentors. Is it hate talk when an LSU professor disagrees with and objects to the establishment that he has agreed to uphold the beliefs of?




    0
    View Comment
  11. It is a sad thing but faith in Jesus gives me hope. I know that this is just one part of when Sister White wrote that the church “Looks” about to fall but it doesn’t, the sinners in Zion will be sifted out!!! God bless all………




    0
    View Comment
  12. Wow! Finally — we have incontrovertible and unimpeachable evidence that indeed, LSU is undermining faith in Adventism’s core beliefs, Ellen White’s ministry, and yes the Bible itself. There’s no room for arguing or deception anymore — it’s as clear as the video before your very eyes!! Now may leadership act quickly to purge this evil from among God’s people.




    0
    View Comment
  13. I don’t see how clearly showing the events in a classroom can be considered tearing down the church, unless those giving the lectures are the ones doing the tearing down. If these videos showed professors giving strong reasons for our faith, from science (such as Michael Behe’s work, or Robert Gentry’s, or Walter Veith’s) then we would not view these videos as tearing down the church, but rather building it up.

    There was a website exposing what was happening at PUC a few years ago called “savepuc.org” or something like that where videos were shown of school talent shows that were basic rock parties with dancing and heavy metal etc. The people in administration hated that site and somehow got it shut down. They considered it an attack against the school, when all it was doing was showing people outside the school what was truly happening in it. I would have considered it an attack if the stories were manufactured, but these are just the facts. If a doctor tells you you’ve got cancer, don’t shoot the doctor!

    The truth is, there is much evidence for a flood, for a literal 6-day creation week, if you care to look for it. If we do most of our research by reading articles and depending on the scientific community to build our model then, no, there won’t be much evidence.

    “But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.” (II Corinthians 4:3,4)

    Jon




    0
    View Comment
  14. Stephen, I agree that Fritz Guy is only ONE of many “expertologists” who should be nowhere near our SDA schools. I won’t list some others, as the powers that be will simply censor the names!




    0
    View Comment
  15. Robert, You think the leadership is going “act quickly” to do something? My guess is they will do absolutely nothing OR find some “fall guy” maybe the custodian in the Biology Department to blame! The true root problems will not be addressed or solved.




    0
    View Comment
  16. In the intro to 111A Dr. Trenchard made it clear that in his opinion all the learning from the students past was vastly different than that of learning at the University level. (example: science fair volcano) The implication was that what was learned in elementary and high school must now be set aside for a new world view (creation vs. evolution?). This mind set presupposes that the creation model the students learned in their classes at a lower level was somehow inferior and void of the latest scientific findings. This implies that it is only at the University level that “truth” can truly be found.

    Dr Guy quotes EGW saying that certain doctrines (including the fundamental truths) of the church may need to be revised. The implication here is that it is at the University level that this quest for new “truth” will be encountered. Again he is setting the stage for the University student to doubt what he/she learned in their earlier education from church, from parents, from former classes. I doubt that what EGW had in mind was casting doubt on the literal six day creation and that now it is fair game simply because the student is at the University level.(serpent & tree in garden argument) If this exercise was designed by the University to foster faith, in my opinion it failed miserably!!




    0
    View Comment
  17. Why are there not hundreds or even thousands of other SDA pastors contributing to this website?[edit]I would appreciate your opinion.  

    Hi Ron,

    There are several SDA pastors who have posted on this very thread, but have chosen not to mention their ministry credentials. I appreciate their input! You are right though, there should be many more engaged in the battle for truth.




    0
    View Comment
  18. In the first video, the virtue of “higher education” was extolled. It seems that these professors believe they hold the key to knowledge. They think that the “university” is the most important institution in society. What they fail to realize is that their idea of truth is not absolute. It is not correct today or even yesterday. I feel sorry for freshman students who surely must have had a hard time following Fritz who claimed they could not know if what they heard twenty minutes ago was infact reality. These men have partaken of broken cisterns and by so doing are themselves broken cisterns [edit].

    Higher education that attempts to remove the absolute truths revealed in the Bible is not higher education in any manner. The earth was created in six days and while many will believe a lie, many will not. Our faith in God and His Word is indeed an intelligent faith based upon evidence much better than any that science provides in an attempt to teach we come from monkeys. Jesus raised the dead and healed the sick. I am sorry that some like Guy Fritz would question this as not certain. Many Seventh-day Adventists and other Christians know in whom we believe and are persuaded that those who do not have such a faith ought not be teaching at professing Christian schools. There will be a day of reckoning [edit].

    Some do not see this as a moral situation at La Sierra, but moral it is. These leaders and teachers will be judged at a higher level because they were in positions of “teachers” at a Seventh-day Adventist “university”. They are leading many to perdition and will be judged accordingly. It is my prayer that some will repent and accept the Word of God as the guide for their lives.

    The La Sierra Board of Trustees are the most accountable for what is happening and they have it in their power to put a stop to this immediately. Tomorrow is not too soon. Did they vote to stop it immediately?




    0
    View Comment
  19. Re: Fritz Guy

    Google Fritz Guy, then on Wikipedia read Langdon Gilkey’s remarks about
    Dr.Guy. Langdon Gilkey supervised Dr.Guy’s dissertation, so google him and
    find out his creation perspective regarding Arkansas etc. Add Dr. Guy’s
    views on same sex relationships and the books he has written to his resume of positions held within the Church, quite a perspective!




    0
    View Comment
  20. Recently I came across this sobering thought from Roger Morneau’s book “A Trip into the Supernatural” (1993). I understand that his unique experience as one who was involved with devil worshipers prior to his conversion gives him credence on what he mentions. He relates his experience of how he heard the priest of a devil worshiper’s society in Montreal say the following which I will reproduce here:

    “…’The spirits decided when the two children [Charles Darwin and Henry Huxley] became adults they would be instruments to advance the religion that we know as the theory of evolution. By tying it in with the scientific revolution breaking across the world, most people wouldn’t even recognize that it is a religion – a religion that crossed all denominational boundaries and even caught up the non-religious.’

    “To my shock and amazement the priest then explained that ‘The spirits consider anyone who teaches the theory of evolution to be a minister of that great religious system, and the individual will receive a special unction from Satan himself. Satan gives him great power to induce spiritual blindness, to convince and to convert. In fact, he holds such people in such high regards that he assigns a special retinue of angels to accompany him or her all of his or her life. It is the greatest honor that Satan can bestow upon a person in the presence of the galaxy.’

    “The priest explained that Satan and his counselors had concluded that they could use the theory of evolution to destroy the very foundation of the Bible. ‘They could turn it against the creation week, the fall, and the plan of redemption. The stakes were so high here that the spirits tell us that Satan himself tutored Charles Darwin in setting up the principles of his scientific concept.'” (Roger Morneau, A Trip into the Supernatural, 46-47).




    0
    View Comment
  21. I find it amazing that more and more people that are Adventist and desire to tear down some of our foundations, which Ellen White even supported herself, use that quote from Ellen White that we have many things to learn and many to unlearn. It seems they love this quote and use the “unlearn” part to support tearing down something they don’t believe in and setting something else in its place. It would be great if they quoted Ellen White where she totally confirms what they are trying to tear down and speaks against what they are trying to set up. But this is the way it goes, people will use isolated Ellen White quotes like people use isolated Bible passages to support what they want. May we all pray for ourselves to let the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy shape and mold us rather than using them to support our own ways.




    0
    View Comment
  22. In the first lecture about the university as the community of ideas, Warren Trenchard and Fritz Guy encourage thinking about ideas and question the source of our knowledge. I agree that the university is for depth of thought and I support it one hundred percent, but departure from the Bible as the inspired source of God’s authoritative Word does not foster richer knowledge. The Bible is our epistemological supremacy, the lenses from which we see our world, our only rule of faith and conduct, from which we evaluate every experience, belief or knowledge, including biology or any other science of the cosmos.

    The superiority of the Bible to our scientific inquiry is the proper relationship in faith and science. Yet, in Trenchard’s ending statements he compels his audience to consider that: “As a La Sierra student you will look for new ways to understand the relationship between God’s boundless revelations in the universe and the experienced human testimony of God’s voice in Scripture.” Must the students really search for new ways to understand this relationship between the Bible and Science? Shouldn’t their established belief in God’s Word above science be their guiding advantage to understand the riches of biology and the sciences? Isn’t faith in God’s Word or “the fear of the LORD the beginning of wisdom”? Wouldn’t it have been better to say “As a La Sierra student you will CONFIRM your understanding of the relationship between the Bible and Scripture by studying the boundless revelations in the universe from the perspective of God as Creator”? Why not acknowledge our presupposition of faith in God’s Word and expand our ability to research and learn of the great mysteries of the world from a biblical perspective?

    “God desires man to exercise his reasoning powers; and the study of the Bible will strengthen and elevate the mind as no other study can. Yet we are to beware of deifying reason which is subject to the weakness and infirmity of humanity. If we would not have the Scriptures clouded to our understanding, so the the plainest truth shall not be comprehended, we must have the simplicity and faith of a little child, ready to learn and beseeching the aid of the Holy Spirit. A sense of the power and wisdom of God, and of our inability to comprehend his greatness, should inspire us with humility, and we should open His Word, as we would enter His presence, with holy awe. When we come to the Bible, reason must acknowledge an authority superior to itself, and heart and intellect must bow to the great I AM.”

    – Ellen White comments in Steps to Christ, chapter 12:

    I couldn’t have said it better myself.




    0
    View Comment
  23. @David Read: In the comments of this date (May 14) reference is again made to “Warren Johns,” not otherwise specified. Once again I call attention to the fact that there are TWO men by that name, Warren H. Johns, the author of the “temple” notion above cited, actively promoting various forms of theistic Evo, and Warren L. Johns, most assuredly of the contrary view, very actively promoting the 6-day, SDA Creationism




    0
    View Comment
  24. Steve, I appreciate your comment. My point was that, in the numerous months this site has been online, I have spoken with quite a few SDA pastors about this matter. Most claimed they never heard of the problem, and the rest seemed to have absolutely no interest in even checking it out and/or getting involved. And, these are our “shepherds!” Something is definitely wrong in our Church!




    0
    View Comment
  25. I listened to the complete video of September 22 class. The fact that a whole class period was devoted to introducing a new way of thinking was enough evidence for me to realize that the instructor’s motives were to CHANGE the thinking. This is to say, not teaching HOW to think, but WHAT to think!

    No presentation of mere facts and knowledge would demand such a lengthy discourse on past education if it is intent on BUILDING on past education.




    0
    View Comment
  26. Pastor Paulsen,…Why are there not hundreds or even thousands of other SDA pastors contributing to this website?[edit]I would appreciate your opinion.  

    We pastors who live farther away from the centers of education must rely on those more closely connected to research and verify the truth, in this case, the truth of what is happening at LSU. That is why the work of EDUCATE TRUTH has been so crucial and helpful. It is dangerous and wrong for me as a pastor to hurry off and report things to my congregations that have not yet been verified. When substantial evidence is forthcoming (which it now has begun to be), I can then move forward with my part. It has never been my position to expect others to somehow accept my comments just because I am a pastor.

    The La Sierra Board of Trustees are the most accountable for what is happening and they have it in their power to put a stop to this immediately. Tomorrow is not too soon. Did they vote to stop it immediately?

    By the way, how DID the vote turn out? I was praying for the Board of Trustees all that day. I believe that while it is important to do the work of exposing error, it is also equally important to ask the Lord for His help in this battle.




    0
    View Comment
  27. Esteban, The “new ways” Trenchard is referring to is the teaching of liberal humanism, including “evolution as fact” as LSU. This philosophy states the Bible is simply [edit] fairy tales, and “allegory” and has not much basis in fact or truth. The exact opposite of what the Bible teaches, of course.




    0
    View Comment
  28. I found the second video very interesting. I am hoping that the professor in the last video I watched was joking about “days of inauguration” What a bunch of double talk. One cannot reconcile a six day fiat creation with “inauguration” rather than “initiation” I found the first video interesting in that they quoted out of “Steps to Christ” Perhaps they would do well to read “Christ Object Lessons” pages 41 and 42 where she has some scathing things to say about the difference between true and false education. I don’t suppose COL will appear in the near future in Dr. Greer’s class. “Understanding the creation days as seven days of inauguration” which could then be extrapolated to suggest great epochs of time. (which took a great deal of work during the initiation faze) I feel sorry for that professor, but I feel even sorrier for the students that he is teaching. Thinking himself to be wise he has become a fool” Why do other evangelicals not proffer this garbage in other bible colleges? Of course I am aware of a Nazarene who is as misguided. One is foolish when one tries to reconcile the irreconcilable. Dr. Wisbey when is enough, enough? I would be terminated if I said these things as an ordained Seventh-day Adventist Minister. Does Andrew’s University share these ideas, if so then it is no wonder they jokingly refer to it as the “Cemetery” rather than the Seminary. I wonder how many honest seekers for truth have lost their way because of this spurious teaching of pseudo science




    0
    View Comment
  29. I hold credentials from the Northern California Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, and I am in good and regular standing. I am aghast at this. It is betrayal of the greatest sort. We are not just adding new understandings we are changing our world view from one concept to a totally foreign one. One that destroys the Sabbath, and the Seventh-day Adventist Church. It’s time we closed such college and let our young people attend secular institutions with a on campus SDA center. It’s cheaper, and the young people going there would have their guard up knowing they will be taught things that undermine their faith. This is unacceptable in a Seventh-day Adventist funded and operated institution of higher learning.




    0
    View Comment
  30. Actually, I quite enjoyed the lectures. This is a conversation that the Adventist church should be participating in if it wants to be intellectually relevant. To bad you are trying to shut it down. The earth is old. Evolution happened. All life is related. I think that this has been conclusively shown. So now what? Should I just leave the church?




    0
    View Comment
  31. So now what? Should I just leave the church?

    If I fundamentally disagreed with the Seventh-day Adventist Church, I would not be a member nor associate with it. I wouldn’t be asking people whether I should stay or go. I wouldn’t have any desire to stay except for social reasons perhaps. One of my friends no longer is with the church because of his interpretation about the natural world and the Bible. While I disagree with his worldview, he is rationally following it.

    How many of the fundamental beliefs can a Seventh-day Adventist reject and still call himself a representative of the church?

    I’m more concerned with members who are paid representatives who undermine the Bible and our beliefs.




    0
    View Comment
  32. @perpetualstudent

    None of us wishes that anyone should leave God’s church and succumb to the darkness of the world. Yet it is this very darkness that has crept into the church. It is this that we see now at LSU. Our schools which should be promoting truth have turned away from it, and how great is that darkness!

    I’m glad you enjoyed the lectures. Unfortunately, they are riddled with lies and half-truths. Did you pull the lies out, as flies from the soup, while enjoying the rest?

    As I mentioned above, one of the speakers says God left a hole of information in the Bible, by not telling us how long Saul reigned. The problem with this is that it is patently false. The book of Acts clearly gives this figure, and one need not go to Josephus as the professor claimed. Furthermore, if he is truly a chronologist as he claimed, he would certainly have been able to look up from the Bible any relevant data. A search of the Bible for any verse containing the words “Saul” and “years” reveals just five texts–the last of which gives the years for Saul’s reign. Even if this theologian/chronologist were to let his Bible collect dust on the shelf, there seems little excuse for not researching his facts before presenting them to the class. Instead of presenting true facts, he has misrepresented the Bible.

    Is this just unfortunate? or is this part of a bigger picture? I hope you will be led to see the truth as you continue in your perpetual learning.

    Erik




    0
    View Comment
  33. Richard Meyers wrote: “The earth was created in six days and while many will believe a lie, many will not.”

    While I strongly believe in the creation record of Genesis 1, the sentiment expressed in this statement — that the Earth was created in six days — is actually part of the problem. Genesis 1 was written in Hebrew and the Hebrew does not say that planet Earth was created in six days. Genesis 1:1-2 deal very briefly with the creation of the universe, of which planet Earth is a part. My translation: “In the distant past Elohiym created the universe and the Earth. 2The Earth was chaotic and useless, and darkness covered the surface of the oceans, while the life-giving breath of Elohiym hovered peacefully over the waters.” Allow me to unpack this a bit.

    In verse 1, this time period is a reference to what Elohiym has already done in the distant past, in an undefined time long, long ago. It is roughly equivalent to the well-known opening line of many fairy tales: “once upon a time…” Moses is telling the reader that at some undefined time in the past, perhaps millions, billions, or trillions of years ago, Elohiym acted to bring the universe and planet Earth into existence. This word sets the context in which the God of the universe turns His attention to planet Earth to change it from an unorganized mud-ball in the universe to a vibrant biosphere.

    The word translated heavens is shâmayim, and is not just a reference to the atmosphere where birds fly and clouds move, but can include the wide expanse of the sky in the sense of where all the celestial bodies can be observed. This wide expanse with everything in it is the entire universe. This word is used seven times in the first chapter of Genesis, and in four places it indicates a reference to space beyond the Earth’s atmosphere (vs. 1, 14, 15, 17), while in three places (vs. 8, 9, & 10), the word means the Earth’s atmosphere. This word is used again in Genesis 2:4 after the Earth has been turned into a place suitable to support life and seems to mean the Earth and its atmosphere.

    Along with having created the universe, Elohiym created planet Earth where nearly all the action recorded in scripture is about to take place. Planet Earth is about to become center stage of the universe where important events will occur that will reveal the true character of this creator Elohiym.

    Verse 2 expresses a contradiction in the observable value of planet Earth before creation week as unorganized, chaotic, desolate, worthless, and useless, and the peaceful contentment of Elohiym in the midst of this. The Earth is tôhû (to’-hoo), which means to lie at waste, in ruin, to be desolate, unorganized, chaotic, or to be worthless. The Earth is also bôhû (bo’-hoo), which means to be empty, vacant, or useless. The Earth is shrouded in thick clouds so that the surface of the Earth is always dark. In contrast to this, the spirit of Elohiym is described as being content with this situation.

    The word for spirit is rûach (roo’-akh) and is the ordinary word for wind or breath. This is a way of indicating that the life-giving breath of Elohiym was present during this long expanse of time into the distant past, but had, as yet, not engaged in any commands that would organize the Earth into a place of value.

    Elohiym is said to be râchaph (raw-khaf’), that is, hovering or fluttering over the waters. The KJV translates this as moving. However, it is not moving in the sense of having a direction or destination, but in the sense of being present like a mother bird fluttering to cover her nest. The word also conveys a sense of calmness and being relaxed, of being at rest and peaceful.

    The final word in verse 2 is mayim (mah’-yim), which is translated to be waters, but also includes all kinds of fluids. The clouds of the atmosphere would also be part of the fluids of the Earth over which the presence of Elohiym presides. Though planet Earth has no obvious value before the six days of creation, the presence of Elohiym surrounds the planet and He is calmly content with its condition.

    Verse 3 begins the creative statements and acts of Elohiym to transform the chaotic, worthless, and useless mud-ball of planet Earth into a vibrant biosphere suitable to support all kinds of living things. This is the beginning of the counting of the six literal days of creation week, but it is not the beginning of the existence of planet Earth. While Elohiym is definitely the creator of planet Earth, scripture clearly tells us the Earth itself was already in existence for a long period of time prior to the events that begin with verse 3.

    There are all sorts of other interesting things one can learn about the words of Genesis 1 & 2, but this much should aid in helping people understand the Hebrew context of Genesis 1, what we should understand the six days of creation to apply to, and sorting out the controversy between some of the issues in the evolution – creation disagreement. The universe and planet Earth are very old, but the events of creation week are relatively young.

    Gerald Brown




    0
    View Comment
  34. Is this a biology class or a philosophy class? I do not remember our biology teachers having the time to discuss philosophy.

    Maybe this professor is bored with teaching biology? Students are in class precious few minutes to spend an entire class defining “university and university students” and other philosophical issues.

    Look how BORED and RESTLESS the students are as he talks past them to whomever he thinks he is teaching. Students are to be engaged from the first class onward! Today’s students do not like “talking heads.” Are the student allowed to speak?

    I would get rid of this teacher for wasting biology instruction time; and for not engaging students in learning! This is a very old fashion, boring, know-it-all type teacher which you will not find in public universities these days.

    I don’t think these teachers could get hired at public universities. Boring, boring . . . wow . . . parents pay for this? Public university students would be too challenging for these teachers.

    JoAnn




    0
    View Comment
  35. Micheal, you need to go back up and read what Haldago wrote about Roger Morneau and what he new as facts. I have read this book also, Don’t have such an “open” mind because satan will move right in!




    0
    View Comment
  36. Gerald Brown wrote:

    “The word translated heavens is shâmayim, and is not just a reference to the atmosphere where birds fly and clouds move, but can include the wide expanse of the sky in the sense of where all the celestial bodies can be observed. This wide expanse with everything in it is the entire universe. This word is used seven times in the first chapter of Genesis, and in four places it indicates a reference to space beyond the Earth’s atmosphere (vs. 1, 14, 15, 17), while in three places (vs. 8, 9, & 10), the word means the Earth’s atmosphere. This word is used again in Genesis 2:4 after the Earth has been turned into a place suitable to support life and seems to mean the Earth and its atmosphere.”

    If the same word is used in each of the seven references you cite, how can you know which times it means “the Earth’s atmosphere” and in which one’s it means “space beyond the Earth’s atmosphere”? Unless you have actually spoken with Moses to question his true meaning, it seems rather subjective to infer that you know which is which.

    I, on the other hand, see all of those words as referring to this earth’s atmosphere, since there is nothing to suggest in the actual text(s) that Moses even KNEW about a heavenly atmosphere beyond that of the one surrounding earth to which he is referring by telling of its creation.

    You also mention “the wide expanse of the sky in the sense of where all the celestial bodies can be observed”. It is clear to me by reading vss. 14 thru 18 that Moses tells us that the “celestial bodies”, which he calls “lights”, were all created on the fourth day and placed “in the firmament of the heaven” on that day.

    By calling your attention to these ideas am I stating that ALL creation of EVERYTHING took place during what we now call “Creation Week”? No, not at all. I’m simply stating my belief that everything associated with OUR EARTH was created during that literal six-day Creation Week, and that it happened about 6,000 years ago, MOL. To suggest that God called matter into existence “trillions of years ago” and then left it “shrouded in thick clouds so that the surface of the Earth is always dark.” [but that] “In contrast to this, the spirit of Elohiym is described as being content with this situation.” seems again to reflect more detailed information than Moses actually provided.

    One other point: you don’t capitalize the word “spirit” where you refer to the third Person of the Godhead and His role in the creation process. Is this intentional?

    ByronC




    0
    View Comment
  37. Virtually every one of you considers it fact that the speakers are undermining Adventist beliefs. But is your opinion a fact or is it a hypothesis? Our honored scientist, Sean Pitman, tells us that if we can’t support our hypothesis with data and probabilities, then it is not a very good one, and it certainly cannot be fact. So what is the evidence?

    HYPOTHESIS: LSU Biology faculty are undermining the Bible and Adventist beliefs by teaching theistic evolution.

    DATA (very easily collected, you folks are clearly expert at this):

    – Number of times a speaker stated that we should ignore or disregard the Bible

    – Number of times a speaker stated that the Bible cannot be trusted

    – Number of times a speaker stated that science is superior to the Bible

    – Number of times a speaker stated that the earth is older than 6000 years

    – Number of times a speaker stated that life could not have been created in six days

    – Number of times a speaker stated that all life forms evolved

    – Number of times a speaker stated that humans evolved

    – Number of times a speaker stated that Darwinism is correct

    – Number of times a speaker stated that Ellen White was uninspired

    – Number of times a speaker stated that even ONE Adventist belief is WRONG

    – Number of these speakers that were LSU biology faculty

    You folks are sooooo thrilled to now have your smoking gun evidence. Well, how strong is it? Have at it!

    CONCLUSION BASED ON DATA: (let’s get to the bottom of this once and for all; perhaps Sean Pitman can calculate probabilities once the data have been collected)




    0
    View Comment
  38. I must say that Gerald Brown falls into the trap of misapplying Scripture over interpretation of the Hebrew or Greek. As Byron pointed out, there is sufficient evidence to support that the six days creation apply to earth even if verse one can apply to God’s creation of other worlds through out the universe.

    Remember this folks, English or any other language is the same. You can misapply any word in any language. ‘Sky’ in English could mean anything literally or philosophically. The context determines where to go. However, the issue here is not the interpretation of the Hebrew; the Hebrew is clear enough for those who know it or have learnt it. The issue we are looking at is whether the earth was created in six literal days. We are not speaking about the whole universe nor where God lives, we are speaking about earth’s creation. The other parts of the universe were also created by God, that’s clear, but that’s not our issue.

    Let’s not pick on language to stray from the text. The text, the Bible, is clear that God created in six literal days and not via the nonsensical vehicle of evolution-an impossibility. While I agree that our universities are for higher learning, whatever that may mean, I certainly believe that higher learning is not to lead where Eve went in the Garden. Higher learning is never at anytime to supersede the Bible. The Bible is to be the foundation of all knowledge.

    We test the university’s quality by the way it relates to the Bible, not the other way round. Any university of ours that belittles or rejects the Bible is to be itself rejected and closed. It may run as a secular school teaching its sophistry, but not as an SDA school. It is time that our leaders (including myself as a pastor) take a decided stand and shut down the classes that promote erroneous teachings; and if need be, as we are counseled in 5T, we sell these institutions and started a fresh with dedicated men and women as instructors. Do not give up in your relationship with God, folks; all this too shall pass away. The devil has to do his dirty tricks, but remember he, like us, is a creature created by God; he is a renegade and seeks to make humans so too, but his end will soon come. Take care.




    0
    View Comment
  39. Where did you get this video? Do you have the right to distribute it? This appears to be a violation of the academic rights of the professors to express themselves experimentally without fear of censorship. These videos should be returned to La Sierra at once!

    The posting of these videos, taken out of context, is an outrage to the academy. Outrageous!




    0
    View Comment
  40. How many of the fundamental beliefs can a Seventh-day Adventist reject and still call himself a representative of the church?

    Well, Uriah Smith believed the Aryian doctrine about the nature of Christ, and James White had a few arguments with his wife. Of course, by now we definitely have all of those questions settled, so, it’s time for all of us to agree or leave. Of course.

    Have you forgotten that to be Protestant means that each individual answers to God, not to church authority? SDA membership is a local matter for very practical reasons. As long as the people who know you well can put up with you, you get to stay. I think it’s a great system.

    How do doctrines rate as compared to personal actions? It seems to me that the gospels teach more about what we should do than what we should believe. So, I’m going to stick around and do the work that God gives me to do while other people argue about the doctrines.




    0
    View Comment
  41. @Jonathan Taylor: I don’t know who sent it to me, but I can wager where they got it–La Sierra University.

    It’s not in violation of anyone’s rights. You claim it violates their right to express themselves without fear of censorship. Are you kidding? What on earth would make you think that by posting these videos for critique it is a violation of their rights? My critique or anyone else’s has absolutely no bearing on their “right” to express themselves. For one thing they don’t have a right to express whatever they want in the first place.

    They’re not taken out of context. The videos show the entirety of the lectures. You’re really reaching on this one. You appear to be more concerned with the professors right to express themselves than with the content they’re expressing.




    0
    View Comment
  42. Protestant. Christian. Seventh-day Adventist. They’re all defined differently. You can’t reject the divinity of Christ and still claim to be a Christian. You seem unconcerned with definitions, so why bother with labels such as Christian. I’m reminded of how some of my students use four-letter-words. The words are used in so many contexts they eventually loose their meaning. Seventh-day Adventists are defined by their beliefs and actions.

    How much of what we stand for and do can you reject and still represent the church?




    0
    View Comment
  43. Jonathan Taylor, it is absolutely ridiculous to think that any video or recorded lecture is the property of teachers! I have taught in our colleges myself; students have taped me several times instead of writing down notes. When they get home they can review their taped lectures. If a professor speaks falsehood in class and it is videoed or taped then he the teacher should be able to defend his lecture or ‘fess up’ to his error. If schools now-a-days prohibit such technology that is a different matter; but there has to be good reasons why they prohibit such; I believe that this is the practice in some or our schools already, however. Do you know how many cameras are posted on every block in many cities? Everything we do and say can be recorded. And we cannot do a thing about it! why should teachers be afraid of being recorded? If students take things out of context and scandal a teacher, then there are the ‘courts’ to take the misdemeanour to to address the matter. To say that I cannot share the contents of my class with strangers is false. What happens when I write verbatim a teacher’s lecture, can I share this with others? I agree that we must be honest and abide by the consequences of scandalizing another person, however. Let’s be wise as students and equally wise and dedicated to the Church’s teachings as teachers.




    0
    View Comment
  44. Just listened to the first of the above lectures. Fritz Guy referred to the book “Steps to Christ” as a devotional treasure. He read part of the preamble to the Fundamental Beliefs with specific mention of the part about how they are subject to change.

    Wow. I think he just knocked out the foundation of Adventism. He even sounded like he believed the preamble.

    Help me understand what I have missed.




    0
    View Comment
  45. @Geanna Dane:

    CONCLUSION BASED ON DATA: (let’s get to the bottom of this once and for all; perhaps Sean Pitman can calculate probabilities once the data have been collected)

    Where have you been Geanna? Have you not read Louie’s letter? Have you not read the lecture handouts and the published statements of the teachers themselves with regard to what they believe and personally claim to teach their students regarding the truth of evolutionary theories?

    The available information is abundant; certainly not limited to the above-listed videos which only deal with the new freshman class. This new class was advertised, by LSU, as an introduction to science and religion with an emphasis on SDA doctrinal beliefs on origins – i.e., in support of a literal creation week and Genesis account. The advertisements were clearly mistaken.

    Nowhere in these lectures are SDA beliefs on origins presented in a favorable manner. They are constantly challenged and undermined with an emphasis placed on a need to be open to changing previously “fundamental” beliefs – – all without any support of SDA doctrinal ideals from the LSU staff leading out in this class (not that that is any big surprise given what they already believe and teach regarding SDA beliefs on origins).

    Now, if you think we are so clearly off base in all of this, why doesn’t LSU present the falsifying evidence? It should be easy to do. Just have the professors themselves explain what they teach their students – that they do actually present the SDA position on origins as the gospel truth in their classes and explain the pitfalls and problems with the naturalistic evolutionary theory of origins. Or, better yet, present videos of lectures where this sort of thing is being done in LSU science classrooms. Such counter-evidence would be most compelling and most welcome!

    As it currently stands, the overwhelming weight of evidence clearly shows that LSU is actively and decidedly undermining SDA fundamental doctrinal beliefs in its science, and even religion, classrooms…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  46. @Jonathan Taylor:

    I forgot to add that these videos were filmed by the university. Students and others had free access to get a free copy of the lectures. In regards to copyright issues I refer to fair use:

    Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
    (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
    (2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
    (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copy- righted work as a whole; and
    (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copy- righted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if
    such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

    http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.pdf




    0
    View Comment
  47. Shane, after further review, it turns out you’re right and I was wrong. I’ll admit that and apologize for any inconvenience my comment may have caused. I have now watched the entire videos and am aghast at what was taught to these students.

    This video of these lectures supposedly supportive of Adventist beliefs undercuts virtually everything the university administration has said on this issue. I previously believed that we could generally trust them on this, but Fritz Guy and Warren Trenchard and Warren Johns apparently have no regard for Adventist beliefs – or even traditional Christian beliefs.

    The Bible to them is nothing more than a myth, or a fictional guideline to how people might want to live their lives. The manner of their approach, to make such a counterpoint to Biblical truth so palatable and intellectual sounding, is such as to make students who are not firmly grounded in truth begin to doubt their beliefs.

    A barrage of these kinds of speeches, day after day, week after week, month after month for four years or more is bound to wreak havoc. The “Temple” ideas sound logical unless you think about them. They ultimately appear to deny the very divinity of Christ by undermining all of the truth about Him. How can Christ co-exist with a world in such chaos? The Bible refers to those who deny Christ as anti-Christ, and sadly I find very little in these lectures that points to the divinity of Christ and the salvation that is given to us.

    These lectures were far less about science than about theology, and I place the blame for this on the doorstep of the theological department which has so drifted from the faith as to be unrecognizable.

    I must withdraw my support from La Sierra University’s actions in this. Thank you for posting these videos – they are painful to watch but perhaps this is the best way to demonstrate the fact that significant changes need to be made, and if not, that the University no longer operate under the guise of the Seventh-day Adventist Church whose beliefs it’s most prominent theologians so despise.




    0
    View Comment
  48. “Where have you been Geanna? Have you not read Louie’s letter? Have you not read the lecture handouts and the published statements of the teachers themselves with regard to what they believe and personally claim to teach their students regarding the truth of evolutionary theories? … Now, if you think we are so clearly off base in all of this, why doesn’t LSU present the falsifying evidence?”

    I’m right here Sean. Waiting to see some data. You guys are SO EXCITED about the videos. Where’s the data I suggested you could extract? Hello? Wheres the smoking gun? Did you not read what Carl had to say>? LSU and their biologists are innocent until proven guilty and they don’t owe the accuser of the brethren (YOU) an answer just because you so clever to go online and tell the entire world (Adventist and beyond) the buck stops with YOU. I’m waiting.




    0
    View Comment
  49. Sean wrote:

    “As it currently stands, the overwhelming weight of evidence…”

    Interesting that he goes through remarkable contortions with statistics and probabilitys in showing the “overwhelming weight of evidence”” supports a recent 6 day creation. But evidently no stats or probabilities are needed to show the “overwhelming weight of evidnce” supporting LSU biologists denying a recent 6 day creation.

    Of course the big problem is that these videos offer no stats or probabilities to support his “overwhelming weight of evidence.” Ouch!




    0
    View Comment
  50. Since the leadership is being rather quiet on this whole shameful situation we can only hope and pray that they are quietly taking steps to end it in a way that will bring honor and glory to God. If this is not the case then we have a MUCH bigger problem than we originally thought we did!




    0
    View Comment
  51. I don’t know Dr. Greer personally, but after having seen some of his positions on origins, placing him as one of the people in charge of this class (intended to give a ‘balanced’ view of Adventism) seems almost like putting the proverbial ‘fox’ in charge of the proverbial ‘hen-house’.
    I don’t see how he could ever give a clear, fair, or balanced view of something (Biblical Creation / origins)that he distinctly does not believe.




    0
    View Comment
  52. I have looked carefully at the second video. There were two speakers. Here is what I have to say about the first.

    Dr. John Webster, the LSU Religion Department faculty member and dean of the School of Religion, said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING THAT UNDERMINED ADVENTIST BELIEFS. Actually, what he stated CLEARLY SUPPORTED ADVENTIST BELIEFS, and to suggest or imply anything differently is downright dishonest. La Sierra is correct in their claim that they are teaching and supporting Adventist beliefs. Here are some highly pertinent tidbits from his talk:

    At 9:58, “Adventists can make a major contribution to the paradigm shift that’s needed in our time as we engage with contemporary science…People in Adventism are often concerned about these five things.”

    SLIDE WITH FIVE THREATS TO WHICH ADVENTISTS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT

    1. Threat to propitiation model of atonement – if death is not “the wages of sin”, but necessary to evolution-creation-life, then the whole purpose of salvation is lost. No fall, no Savior.

    2. Threat to confidence in the Bible – if creation is not taken literally, why take the ressurection and 2nd coming literally?

    3. Threat to the Sabbath – if the creation story is not literally true, then why take the Sabbath as a literally true command to be kept?

    4. Threat to the Immanence of the Second Advent – if “creation” takes place over billions of years, why should we not expect the future will extend for billions more?

    5. Threat to the Character of God – how can we reconcile the character of God (love) with the scientific (can’t read) cosmic, planetary, biological and human evolution- which necessarily inncludes massive destruction (super-nova), inefficiency, waste, (can’t read), and extinction?

    At 11:22, “I’m here to tell you that while these are serious challenges, every one of them can be met, and their various assumptions behind them; every single one of these apparent threats.”

    At 14:40, “So I’d like to just suggest to you…that as you progress in your careers here at La Sierra University…one of the things that is exciting to you is, as you learn biology, as you learn the science and grapple with the data, I’m not here to tell you what the data tells you, but I’m here to assure you that faith can survive, faith can thrive, and faith can…actually help in Christianty’s current life area of engaging with the new world…in a way that can be fruitful, in a way that leads to integration of and a greater sense of wholeness and a way of living in the world today.”




    0
    View Comment
  53. Regarding the second speaker, he is not a LSU employeed, he was invited. He never stated that anything he had to say was absolute fact or that he believed in it.

    I liked his preamble. At 19:00, he stated “You are here to develop your own taylor-made world view, custom-made. It’s not going to be handed on a platter; your teachers aren’t going to give you a worldview and say, “here take it and adjust it”. It’s something you have to hammer out. Now, none of us have created a world view from scratch; think about that. We’re all inheritors of previous world views. Sometimes we have two or more world views that seem to clash…there are ways of bringing the two world views together, more scientific, and more theological, in perfect harmony… When you graduate…you’re going to take one of the most precious things you could ever have, one of the most valuable things,
    a worldview that is well integrated.”

    He then presented some basic facts about sacred texts and a theory of chronology. He prefaced his theory by stating, at 24:57, “If you go back to the oldest Jewish chronology that we have a record of, called (??could’nt spell??)…known as the “Book of Ages”…it dates to the early 2nd century A.D….That has a complete chronology of the world. And what I’m presenting here is the chronology of (????), in part.”

    At the end, the full answer to Greer’s question was (if I understand it right) “The absolute literal approach is actually a textbook approach but we treat it as a science book; it just doesn’t work in ancient thought. The ancient people with their concept of temple and symbolism, they can say, you know, it doesn’t mean a thing. What I’m saying is once we understand what it actually meant, then we can provide harmony…(??couldn’t hear last phrase clear enough??)”

    Basically he was contrasting the treatment of a sacred text (the Bible) as a science textbook versus ancient use of temples and symbols. Even God himself made very rich use of symbols.

    Did La Sierra tell Dr. Warren what to say? Did they know in advance what he was going to say? Exactly where did La Sierra (Religion or Biology) condone was Dr. Warren said? Did he statements represent the totality of this particular lecture or the whole course? I think you folks know the answer to all of these questions.




    0
    View Comment
  54. Oh my goodness. I watched the first video in its entirety. From two Department of Religion faculty there was ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that undermined Adventist beliefs. The Adventist church and its beliefs was treated with UTMOST RESPECT! If anything, the extensive quotes by Ellen White and the preamble to the 28 fundamental beliefs were the only comments that could be interpreted as undermining Adventist doctrines!!!

    So, if these two videos are the very worst of the course, then you have utterly failed to show that this course undermines the church. What is wrong with you people?

    Where vultures gather more will come and there WILL be a feast, even if the carcass is imagined more so than real.




    0
    View Comment
  55. @Geanna Dane:

    I’m right here Sean. Waiting to see some data. You guys are SO EXCITED about the videos. Where’s the data I suggested you could extract? Hello? Wheres the smoking gun? Did you not read what Carl had to say>? LSU and their biologists are innocent until proven guilty and they don’t owe the accuser of the brethren (YOU) an answer just because you so clever to go online and tell the entire world (Adventist and beyond) the buck stops with YOU. I’m waiting.

    As I’ve already told you, the evidence isn’t limited to these videos Geanna. You need to read the lecture notes and personal statements of the professors themselves – which are also posted on this website. I’ve also personally seen some of these professors in action. I’ve met with the students. You actually have to open your eyes, but if you do, the evidence is quite overwhelming…

    By the way, you don’t need statistics or a hypothesis if the facts are right before your eyes. You don’t need predictive value or science in such a case to see the truth of the situation…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  56. Sean Pitman wrote “By the way, you don’t need statistics or a hypothesis if the facts are right before your eyes. You don’t need predictive value or science in such a case to see the truth of the situation…”

    Okay, here it is regarding the two videos…

    HYPOTHESIS: LSU Biology faculty are currently undermining the Bible and Adventist beliefs by teaching theistic evolution, as evidenced in the fall 2009 seminar.

    DATA (though not needed because its right before our eyes):

    – Number of times a speaker stated that we should ignore or disregard the Bible: ZER0

    – Number of times a speaker stated that the Bible cannot be trusted: ZER0

    – Number of times a speaker stated that science is superior to the Bible: ZER0

    – Number of times a speaker stated that the earth is older than 6000 years: ZER0 (THOUGH IMPLICIT AS A POSSIBILITY ACCORDING TO DR. WARREN)

    – Number of times a speaker stated that life could not have been created in six days: ZER0

    – Number of times a speaker stated that all life forms evolved: ZER0

    – Number of times a speaker stated that humans evolved: ZER0

    – Number of times a speaker stated that Darwinism is correct: ZER0

    – Number of times a speaker stated that Ellen White was uninspired: ZER0

    – Number of times a speaker stated that even ONE Adventist belief is WRONG: ZER0 (THOUGH ELLEN WHITE AND THE PREAMBLE TO OUR FUNDAMENTAL BELIEFS STATED THIS AS A POSSIBILITY; LOOK WHO IS UNDERMINING THE CHURCH!!!)

    – Number of these speakers that were LSU biology faculty: ZER0

    CONCLUSION: The two videos prove that La Sierra University and the biologist faculty in particular is undermining traditional Adventist believes. The data may not be there but according to Pitman we can see it before our eyes. I saw 90 minutes of the proof myself. The videos are a smoking gun indeed. Time to shut down the university.




    0
    View Comment
  57. @Geanna Dane: You, like these professors, do not believe they are undermining Seventh-day Adventist doctrine. When a professor claims that these threats to our beliefs can be met, but then says our method to understanding Genesis is not helpful and then offers some strange convoluted temple theology, he’s undermining our beliefs. The whole temple theology undermines our our doctrine. You’re simply wrong.




    0
    View Comment
  58. @Geanna Dane:

    CONCLUSION: The two videos prove that La Sierra University and the biologist faculty in particular is undermining traditional Adventist believes. The data may not be there but according to Pitman we can see it before our eyes. I saw 90 minutes of the proof myself. The videos are a smoking gun indeed. Time to shut down the university.

    This freshman class was advertised by LSU as a class that would address the concerns of many that LSU science professors are promoting the modern theory of evolution as the true story of origins while actively suppressing the SDA view on origins – arguing, in public forum, that this view is held by only the “lunatic fringe” within the Church (to quote the comments of long time senior professor Larry Bradley – published last year in a secular journal article).

    The truth of the matter is that this class does not even present much less promote the SDA views on origins. The presenters argue that the students should be open minded to the potential to change their minds with regard to such doctrinal points of view, opening the door for acceptance of the evolutionary views of the LSU science professors… views that have been clearly published and affirmed by the professors themselves as the true story of origins as they understand things.

    To make matters worse, not only does this class not present or support the SDA view on origins, but it brings in guest speakers to actually challenge, yet again, the SDA views on origins as being symbolic – not literal according to the SDA understanding.

    I repeat again, no one presented the SDA view on origins in a positive manner in this class – with explanations explaining why the weight of available evidence actually supports the SDA view vs. the mainstream evolutionary views on origins… no one.

    That, in a nutshell, are the problems with this new freshman class. It does not address those problems that already exist and are well-known at LSU – despite advertisements by LSU to the contrary. And, it brings in professors to undermine the SDA understanding of a literal Genesis narrative… only compounding LSU’s pre-existing problems.

    As an aside, you argue that not one lecturer in the videos presented questioned the trustworthiness of the Bible…

    As you know, that all depends upon what interpretation of the Bible you are considering. Warren Johns clearly challenged the literal interpretation of the Genesis account as being obviously trustworthy – suggesting that it is much more obviously symbolic; not literal. In essence, he did in fact suggest that we should “ignore or disregard” the arguments of the SDA Church for a literal interpretation of the Genesis account. The reason Johns did this is because he does in fact believe that it is not only possible, but likely that life has existed on this planet for far more than 10,000 years and was not in fact created in six literal days – but only “inaugurated” or “dedicated” over the course of seven literal days.

    Do you really not understand that this argument is presented specifically to support mainstream evolutionary ideas that life did in fact evolve or change by some mechanism over vast periods of time and that this change also involved the suffering and death of billions of sentient creatures? Do you not understand this challenge?

    If Johns really did believe in and support the SDA perspective on origins, there would simply be no reason to argue for the symbolic interpretation of the Bible that he proposed (i.e., his “Temple Theology”). Despite your assertion to the contrary, such ideas also strike directly at the notion that Ellen White was truly inspired by God in the manner that she herself claims…

    Beyond this, your long list of observations, most of which are clearly mistaken, do not address the main point of these videos nor do they address pre-established observations regarding what is really being promoted by the LSU science professors…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  59. Dr. John Webster, the LSU Religion Department faculty member and dean of the School of Religion, said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING THAT UNDERMINED ADVENTIST BELIEFS.

    THE FIRST IS A LITERAL READING OF SCRIPTURE. “SO CALLED” LITERAL BECAUSE REALLY I’M NOT SURE IT’S VERY LITERAL.

    IT’S RATHER A KIND OF MODERN READING. OUR WORLD CONTINGENT ON ALL THE TEXTS OF THE BIBLE.

    IT USES THE SO CALLED HISTORICAL-GRAMMATICAL METHOD.

    THE BIBLE IS SEEN AS A UNIQUE PROPOSITIONAL REVELATION DUE TO ITS SUPERNATURAL ORIGIN.

    AND IT IS TO BE TAKEN JUST AS IT READS, AS IF IT WERE WRITTEN DIRECTLY TO US TODAY.

    AND GENESIS IS TAKEN TO BE A DIVINELY REVEALED SCIENCE.

    HAVE YOU HEARD OF THIS BEFORE? ANYONE? HAVE YOU SEEN THIS SORT OF APPROACH TO THINGS?

    WE FIND BOTH OF THOSE READINGS OF THE BIBLE NOT PARTICULARLY HELPFUL.
    (42:14)

    He just knocked our method of biblical interpretation. The Seventh-day Adventist Church does not subscribe to any of the other methods mentioned. He also attacked the authority of the Bible. It’s pretty obvious to me what he’s saying here.




    0
    View Comment
  60. As Seventh-day Adventists we have the clearest counsel against these false teachings (like those presented in lecture #2). We do well to recall to mind the words given to Sister White through the Spirit of Inspiration:

    “The truths most plainly revealed in the Bible have been involved in doubt and darkness by learned men, who, with a pretense of great wisdom, teach that the Scriptures have a mystical, a secret, spiritual meaning not apparent in the language employed. These men are false teachers. It was to such a class that Jesus declared: “Ye know not the Scriptures, neither the power of God.” Mark 12:24. The language of the Bible should be explained according to its obvious meaning, unless a symbol or figure is employed. Christ has given the promise: “If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine.” John 7:17. If men would but take the Bible as it reads, if there were no false teachers to mislead and confuse their minds, a work would be accomplished that would make angels glad and that would bring into the fold of Christ thousands upon thousands who are now wandering in error. -Great Controversy, p.598.3

    “All who value their eternal interests should be on their guard against the inroads of skepticism. The very pillars of truth will be assailed. It is impossible to keep beyond the reach of the sarcasms and sophisms, the insidious and pestilent teachings, of modern infidelity. Satan adapts his temptations to all classes. He assails the illiterate with a jest or sneer, while he meets the educated with scientific objections and philosophical reasoning, alike calculated to excite distrust or contempt of the Scriptures.”
    Great Controversy, p. 600




    0
    View Comment
  61. Pitman wrote “your long list of observations, most of which are clearly mistaken.”

    Oh yeah? Which observation do I have wrong?

    Hilde quoted Webster: “THE FIRST IS A LITERAL READING OF SCRIPTURE. “SO CALLED” LITERAL BECAUSE REALLY I’M NOT SURE IT’S VERY LITERAL.”

    Where is this statement in the video, and what exactly does the “the first” refer to? Is he describing his personal views or summarizing someone else’s? If he “attacked the authority of the Bible,” then please tell me why he stated that the Adventist church could meet every threat that evolution poses to five fundamental Adventist interpretations of scripture: the atonement, confidence in the Bible (the authority of scripture), the immanent second advent, and the character of God.




    0
    View Comment
  62. So Trenchard asked that his speech be taken down. Why do we now have only 82 seconds of Fritz Guy’s electrifying peroration on epistemology?




    0
    View Comment
  63. Where is this statement in the video

    You can find it at 00:42:14.

    what exactly does the “the first” refer to?

    He’s referring to the different schools of interpretation.

    If he “attacked the authority of the Bible,” then please tell me why he stated that the Adventist church could meet every threat that evolution poses to five fundamental Adventist interpretations of scripture…

    He proposes that the conflicts that Adventists object to if evolution is true can “BE MET AND THERE ARE VARIOUS OPTIONS FOR US TO DEAL WITH EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESES APPARENT THREATS.”

    One of his options is changing how we look at Genesis. It’s not a historical record of what happened. He then offers the temple theology up as an example. Obviously the church’s current understanding of Genesis can’t meld the theory of evolution with Scripture, so it’s not very useful.




    0
    View Comment
  64. Pitman wrote “it brings in guest speakers to actually challenge, yet again, the SDA views on origins as being symbolic – not literal according to the SDA understanding”.

    Umm, what is wrong with bringing in diverse viewpoints? Do we make sure that only one version of so-called truth is the only thing we expose students to? Do you believe faithful Adventists must tell students “this is truth and don’t listen to anything else that is told you because anything that disagrees with SDA beliefs is an outright lie.” Our we students (myself included) too stupid to make up our own minds? Do we have to run all facts by you first to make sure we understand truth?

    Only two guest speakers spoke according to the schedule. Dr. Warren Johns who introduced concepts (not described as facts) and Dr. Ben Clausen of the Geoscience Research Institute. Are you telling us that Clausen claimed that life evolved over billions of years? Dr. Johns certainly did not. Are you telling us that Dr. Clausen said that SDA views on origins are are not correct or that our interpretation of Genesis should not be literal? I’ve heard him speak before and I would be very surprised.




    0
    View Comment
  65. Shane,

    Umm, I’m sorry to disappoint you, but you have ascribed to Dr. Webster statements from Dr. Warren. Look again at who is speaking at 00:42:14.

    I stand by my statements regarding Dr. Webster.




    0
    View Comment
  66. I think there is a determination here to show that Drs. Trenchard, Guy, and Webster MUST be undermining Adventist beliefs because after all we’ve been fed this line over and over that the Religion and Biology departments are doing so. Why can’t you people be fair and give these individuals under seige a chance? I don’t believe these three have said a single thing wrong. Many commmenters here are trying their darndest to find fault. Reminds me of a roaring lion seeking to devour. I find this judgmental and downright enthusiastic spirit very disturbing. Very disturbing.




    0
    View Comment
  67. LSU is not only attacking SDA beliefs in particular, but all of Christanity in general.

    All of the old testament is based on a six literal days of creation with the 7th day Sabbath at the end of the week.

    For the heathen, their “God” was never any higher than creation itself. For the Hebrew, the true God was over and above all that has been created. And this distinguished the true God from idols.

    If you draw a circle in your mind and place all of creation inside the circle, you will necessarily place the God of creation outside the circle. And this is the true God of the bible. Any compromise with this concept undermines the true faith, both old and new testament.

    I personally doubt the denomination either can, or will, deal with LSU in any dynamic way. The church has no authority and can only plead for LSU to either cease the way they are teaching, or at least, tone it down.

    LSU will continue to thumb their nose at the church and do as they please. The fragmenting of Adventism will continue into complete confusion. In the end, the church will get smaller before it gets bigger.

    The shaking is intensifying and will continue until “everything that can be shaken, will be shaken.” None the less, we must continue to protest until the people of the church realize their duty to demand accountability until there are results one way or the other.

    Bill Sorensen




    0
    View Comment
  68. I wonder why Geanna cannot be objective? Is it not possible to discuss the evidence and claims under debate?

    It is simple, really! The SDA church has a position on Genesis 1-2 (creation, origins). The discussants claim that the evidence provided shows LSU undermining and discarding that position.

    Does the evidence support Bishop et al?

    It certainly does. If we call ourselves Christians the least we can do is be honest and unbiased.

    Perhaps Geanna wants to argue for evolution. It is acceptable to do so but please do not try to state that the evidence collected. The fact is, after the controversy came to the fore, LSU president should have ensured that if they were not in apostasy, then ALL class material and lectures should conform. Instead, the abundant evidence shows a renegade institution.

    It is time for corrective action.




    0
    View Comment
  69. As far as the teaching philosophy that is happening in the classroom, as seen in Lecture #2…this is not biblical either. One of the professors said something to the effect of (I’m roughly quoting), “We’re not going to tell or teach you what you should believe. You’ll have to form those opinions for yourself.” Certainly, none of us should ever force another’s will or mind to bend exactly to our own. But, whatever happened to taking a stand for the truth of heaven that we personally and corporately believe in. What ever happened to the necessity of guiding young minds to place their firm belief in God’s truth, which is so clearly revealed through His word. “Thy word is truth” (John 17:17). God says of His commands, “Thou shalt DILIGENTLY teach them to your children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thy house, and when you lie down, and when thou rise up…” (Deut. 6:7). And at the heart of those very commands is the Holy Sabbath commandment. And at the heart of that commandment is the very reason for this Blessed day of Rest, “for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested the Seventh day…”. Any teaching philosophy that says, “Make up your own opinion according to all the false science you hear…we won’t tell you what is right to believe,” is straight up from the Devil. God says, “Train up your children is the way they should go, and when they are old, they will not depart from it.” (Proverbs 22:6).

    This false kind of- “believe whatever you want”-teaching in the classroom is all too common today. It is the way of worldly education and it is the Greek philosophical method(which hardly would take a stand for anything).”For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.” That’s far from God’s way. Christ “taught as one having authority, not as the Scribes” and Pharisees (Matthew 7:29). If we are of Christ, then we must teach as Christ did. Certainly the ideas of men are not authoritative, but the Word God is absolutely authoritative. When it comes to our beliefs and faith about the most fundamental truths of life, any Christian who is a Christian must stand firmly by the “faith of Jesus” (Rev. 14:14), which was and always will be, “It is written…it is written…it is written” (Matthew 4). “Thus saith the Lord” is the premise of all true education. All so-called scientific claims, must be subject to and understood in the unchangeable light of that word, and our teaching in a Seventh-day Adventist school (if so called by that name), must come from that premise. Let’s call all education by it’s right name. If it’s Adventist, let it be Adventist, if it’s Baal’s, let be known as Baal’s, but let not the darkness of a wolf masquerade under the white garments of a Sheep.




    0
    View Comment
  70. … he’s undermining our beliefs. The whole temple theology undermines our doctrine. You’re simply wrong.

    Mostly, he’s undermining your rigid literal interpretation, and your concept that we should not adjust any of our fundamental beliefs. It’s quite true that Adventists started as proof-text people, and many have stayed with that approach. But, there’s much more to Scripture than proof texts.

    I came across a report, written by Ron Reece, of a meeting of the Adventist Theological Society at SWAU last month. Here’s his comment about a presentation by Michael Campbell:

    This paper reviewed the writings of early Adventist leaders; leaders, who mostly expounded a literal 7 day creation story of the ‘entire’ universe 6000 years ago. However, it was interesting to later learn that a seven day literal creation of the ‘entire’ universe and planet earth, 6000 year ago, is not generally taught an Andrews University Theological Seminary or believed by many ATS members or supported by several of Ellen White statements.

    That’s quite a shift from a universe created 6000 years ago to the position that the universe is old and the earth is old and life was created 6000 years ago.

    Dr. Earl Aagaard gave the final presentation. Reece says:

    Being retired emboldens Adventist’s professors. Aagaard bluntly stated that there are significant problems in the geological column that are unexplainable with a literal seven day creation week and global flood – just as the geological column presents problems for Darwinian naturalists. We should be able to tell our college students, ‘We don not know.’ Even though Aagaard would prefer theistic evolutionists not teach in Adventist schools, our battle is primarily not with theistic evolutionists [such as Francis Collins], our real battle is with Darwinian materialists or naturalists where God is absent at any point in cosmic history.

    Wow. Even the Adventist Theological Society is undermining Adventist beliefs.




    0
    View Comment
  71. Jonathan Smith wrote, “I wonder why Geanna cannot be objective? Is it not possible to discuss the evidence and claims under debate? The discussants claim that the evidence provided shows LSU undermining and discarding that position.”

    I am not being objective? I actually came up with my list of variables to collect data on before I watched the videos. After watching them I became convinced that the majority of the video content did not undermine Adventists beliefs. The only evidence presented that contradicts my conclusions was mistakenly attributed to the wrong speaker. Unless I missed something substantial there was no undermining of Adventists beliefs with the possible exception of Dr. Warren, and he was very polite in proposing an alternative view to some of the symbolism that relates to Genesis. He was much nicer in his approach than many commenters here including you. You can say that all four speakers undermined our beliefs, but you offer no quotes. WHo is being objective? You actually want to believe all the speakers are undermning the church because YOU HAVE READ PREVIOUS MATERIAL SUPPORTING YOUR BELIEF THEY ARE UNDERMINING THE CHURCH. Dr. Warren is NOT La Sierra University.




    0
    View Comment
  72. Benjamin Burkhardt, your judgmental remarks are based on a very small snapshot of what is taught at LSU. No one in the videos advocated “believe whatever you want” teaching. One could easily take a few words from Christ’s teaching and come up with all sorts of conclusions about his views and style and to what extent he supported the old testament. There’s a big picture at LSU that cannot be captured adequately by the videos, this single course or even here at Educate Truth.




    0
    View Comment
  73. My last post was about Warren Johns’ talk, in which he argues that the Genesis 1 is not to be taken as a description of the creation of the world, but rather as describing the dedication of the cosmos/temple, the idea being that if 2nd century Jews came up with a chronology that has 7 cycles of 490 years, then Moses didn’t intend for Genesis to be taken literally, despite the Sabbath command.

    Now I want to discuss John Webster’s talk. Near the beginning he says “you can surely be a top-flight scientist and a Christian; look at Francis Collins and Owen Gingerich (both of whom are theistic evolutionists). The none too subtle message is that you CANNOT be a top-flight scientist and a creationist.

    Next he quotes a passage from Ellen White that he asserts is the “core Adventist tradition.” The quote is to the effect that since the book of nature and book of revelation bear the stamp of the same mastermind, they cannot but speak in harmony. … Science brings from her research nothing that “rightly understood” conflicts with revelation. In talking about this passage, Webster seems to be hinting that nature might teach us that we evolved from lower creatures over hundreds of millions of years, but based upon numerous other statements, Ellen White would not regard any macro-evolutionary inference from nature as “nature rightly understood.”

    He states, quite correctly, that modern science is a child of Christian faith, and he deserves a lot of credit for getting that right, but he should have added that the founders of modern scientists were not only Christians, but also for the most part young earth creationists.

    He next turns to the topic of exegeting the Bible, and mentions two German theologians, Karl Barth and Jurgen Moltmann, neither of whom took Genesis literally in the Adventist manner. Ron Osborn recently pointed this out at Spectrum: http://www.spectrummagazine.org/node/2142. So Webster’s point seems to be that sophisticated exegetes of Scripture do not take Genesis literally.

    He next mentions Thomas S. Kuhn’s concept of paradigm shifts, but instead of stating that perhaps origins science needs a paradigm shift, he says that religion, particular Adventist religion, needs a paradigm shift. In other words, in the clash between Adventism and Darwinism, Adventism must give way and construct a new paradigm.

    He next lists five major challenges that Darwinism poses to Adventism. He says, with great conviction, that there are answers to all five of these challenges, but except for the second challenge, he doesn’t say what they are. The successful integration of Darwinism and Adventism is the holy grail of liberal types, and you’d think he couldn’t stop talking about it, if he’d really done it. But of course he hasn’t.

    The second challenge listed is the threat to the Bible, below which it states: “If creation is not taken literally, why take the resurrection or the 2nd coming literally?” He does share his thoughts about this one, asserting that there are 4 ways of reading the Bible 1) literally –the historical-grammatical approach, 2) as pure myth, 3) figuratively, and 4) realistically. He dismisses the literal and mythological approaches out of hand as not very helpful. He allows that the “figurative” approach may be helpful, and gives as an example Johns’ bizarre “temple theology” in which Genesis 1 describes not the creation of the world, but the dedication of the temple/cosmos. But he saves most of his effort for the “realistic” approach, pursuant to which one approaches the Bible just as a cultural anthropologist approaches a primitive tribe: to learn what the tribe thinks and believes (but not to learn what to believe yourself).

    He mentions the film, “The gods must be crazy.” For those of you unfamiliar with that South African film from about 25 years ago, a pilot flying over the Kalahari Desert carelessly throws out an empty bottle of Coke. The tribe of Bushmen who find it believe it was given them by the gods, and it has many different uses. Eventually the bottle causes so much envy and strife, however, that one of the bushman decides to take the bottle and throw it off the edge of the world. A charming little adventure ensues. Webster’s point seems to be that we should view the Bible writers just as we would study a primitive tribe in the Kalahari.

    So this “realistic” approach to scripture is the one Webster is most enthusiastic about. He never comes back, however, to answer the question of “If creation is not taken literally, why take the resurrection or the 2nd coming literally?” So even regarding the one “challenge” of Darwinism to Adventism he deigns to try to answer, he never really does. He just punts.




    0
    View Comment
  74. I have waited a long time to comment on all the space dedicated to what Geanna Dane has to say about almost any and every topic that is presented on this website . I, for one, have a hard time finding anything very constructive about them. (If I counted correctly there were 24 entries listed above this comment and 11 were from her. And a number of those others were in reply to her comments. To me, that seems a bit much, (Am I the only one who sees things this way?)

    I truly don’t want to come across as critical and condemnatory because only God knows her heart and her motives but I must admit it wearies me. Most of the comments on this website are well written and thought provoking–even sone who are not really supportive of what this site is trying to do I have learned a great deal from all of them. Maybe it’s me–and I apologize in advance if it is–but I have a difficult time getting anything really uplifting or constructive out of her arguments and I would appreciate seeing at least a few less of them..




    0
    View Comment
  75. Bill Sorenson, your remarks are hardly worth addressing. Like this one:

    “If you draw a circle in your mind and place all of creation inside the circle, you will necessarily place the God of creation outside the circle. And this is the true God of the bible. Any compromise with this concept undermines the true faith, both old and new testament.”

    Wow. Now this is really scriptural! A circle? I believe in creation and I have no iidea what your imaginary circle is and see no relevance whatsoever.. But I will say this: the probabilily of there being a functional complexity that exists both within and outside this circle surely exceeds 1000 fsaars, unless Im mistaken.

    By the way I believe in creation.




    0
    View Comment
  76. Okay, I have watched Dr. Webster again and he did have a slide which he commented on regarding the four approaches toward interpreting the Bible. Shane apparently gave the wrong time stamp. It starts at 11:48. I haven’t listened closely enough to determine if your portrayal below is correct, but here is what I think of the statments you profvided.

    THE FIRST IS A LITERAL READING OF SCRIPTURE. “SO CALLED” LITERAL BECAUSE REALLY I’M NOT SURE IT’S VERY LITERAL. – If those adhering to this approach believes that the four corners of the earth is not literal, then there is reason why we should say it’s not very literal. There are many statements made in scripture that are not very literal.

    IT’S RATHER A KIND OF MODERN READING. OUR WORLD CONTINGENT ON ALL THE TEXTS OF THE BIBLE. – Which is why our modern concept tells us that things like the four corners are not literal.

    IT USES THE SO CALLED HISTORICAL-GRAMMATICAL METHOD. – okay

    THE BIBLE IS SEEN AS A UNIQUE PROPOSITIONAL REVELATION DUE TO ITS SUPERNATURAL ORIGIN. – okay. nothing wrong here.

    AND IT IS TO BE TAKEN JUST AS IT READS, AS IF IT WERE WRITTEN DIRECTLY TO US TODAY. – yes, more or less

    AND GENESIS IS TAKEN TO BE A DIVINELY REVEALED SCIENCE. – yes, of course

    HAVE YOU HEARD OF THIS BEFORE? ANYONE? HAVE YOU SEEN THIS SORT OF APPROACH TO THINGS? – duhhh! I have!

    Shane then swaid: “He just knocked our method of biblical interpretation. The Seventh-day Adventist Church does not subscribe to any of the other methods mentioned. He also attacked the authority of the Bible. It’s pretty obvious to me what he’s saying here.” I say he did none of the sort. Of course, you want to believe this.

    Shane also said, “One of his options is changing how we look at Genesis. It’s not a historical record of what happened. He then offers the temple theology up as an example. Obviously the church’s current understanding of Genesis can’t meld the theory of evolution with Scripture, so it’s not very useful.” Dr. Webster did not.




    0
    View Comment
  77. I just wanted to let all know that there is definitely one more pastor who is appalled by what is going on at LSU. Furthermore, as someone who taught there from 1984 to 1989 it is not at all surprising to me. Things were already heading in that direction then. Most of my career was spent in SDA higher education, but I am now in pastoral ministry partly because of the way much of SDA higher ed is going.

    I noticed in the second posted lecture that the lecturer seemed well aware of most of the arguments against his positions. One I haven’t heard occured to me while I was at church. I wonder what these folks do with the new heaven and the new earth. Is that going to take a few billion years too? Does Revelation only speak of the “inauguration?” of the new heaven and new earth? If it weren’t so serious I would be amused. Very rarely, if ever, have I seen people work so hard to salvage any remnant of truth from their own attacks! After essentially tearing Scripture apart they bend over backwards trying to make it mean something after all. There’s only one problem. The Bible doesn’t say anything remotely resembling what they say it does.

    It’s time all of us make a choice. Either we are going to believe the Bible or we are going to believe modern, humanistic, materialistic, darwinistic “science.” The Bible and the conclusions of the camp just mentioned are wholly incompatible. What amazes me most is that those trying to wed the two are in most endeavors people of tremendous intellectual ability and great logical acumen. When it comes to this subject, however, they take cognitive disonance beyond all sense. They simultaneously take two absolutely contradictory positions. Perhaps they should quit concentrating on “evidence” for a while and consider the implications of pure logic.

    The bottom line is this. My heart broke as I watched the wide-eyed freshmen on these videos. I have stood in front of thousands of these in my career. How well I know how easy it is to wow them. When I was teaching Mathematics to them they never questioned me. I was the expert. The damage these teachers and this institution are doing is inestimable. It is very likely that the majority of these students will leave the university accepting most of what they heard.

    On a happier note, let’s be certain of one thing. Whether our efforts to change things are successful or not, things will soon be put right. Even if leadership continues to watch with a blind eye, it will soon be put right. God Himself will only allow this for a while. But, if there is something that any of us can do, we’d better do it. I surely don’t want God to turn to me some day and ask why I didn’t speak out for Him.




    0
    View Comment
  78. I just viewed the presentation by Dr.Johns. It was great and actually proves to me how the cycles of seven are more proof that the Bible is literally correct in its’ chronology. So I don’t know how Dr. Johns can come to the conclusion from that, to say that the “literal approach doesn’t work in ancient thought” when practically all Hebrew scholars refer to Hebrew as being a literal, real language. The problem is that today we are more philosophical then real in our thinking and writing . That is why we find it hard to believe in a very plain “thus saith the Lord”, and start our research and study from that “revelation”.
    John Korponay




    0
    View Comment
  79. The problem isn’t so much the biologists who are simply treading the path of secular biologists. The problem is with the theologians who are twisting their theology around and decimating the authority of Scripture in doing so.




    0
    View Comment
  80. Another point: If LSU were truly interested in being intellectually honest, they would seek to address the concerns of the students head on instead of trying to hide the class session videos. In this case, LSU will probably want all of these videos gone ASAP because they don’t want the truth of what they are teaching to come out – they only want their PR to come out.

    LSU has disappointed me sorely on this account by the way that they have treated the students who have bravely spoken out on this issue. The watching of the videos demonstrate, at the least, that LSU is disingenuous in its claims.

    Parents may send their students to LSU – that is all fine and good – but do not expect them to emerge with their faith intact unless they are well prepared, like Louie Bishop and Shane Hilde, to stand firm like the three worthies before the statue of gold.

    La Sierra should seriously reconsider its staffing of the theology department. If not, then the university should be shut down. It is that plain to me.




    0
    View Comment
  81. Further to the video – it is used as fair use to illustrate that the University has not properly addressed the issue and continues to mock the church’s beliefs, indeed those of Christianity. The University ought not to lengthen its string of censorship and disharmony – if it is to regain but a shred of its credibility it should allow these videos to remain and address the concerns raised in response. If LSU tries to suppress this information, and censor, the problem for LSU will grow exponentially.

    Large donors of the University who have donated while under the impression that LSU furthers the mission of the Adventist Church should not be kept from this information. They should see exactly what their hard earned dollars go for.




    0
    View Comment
  82. If it were, that the Genesis account the only Scripture of our origins, then there might be some merit to his argument. But, other Scripture states that God spoke and it was done, and it stood fast. The creative power of God is also seen in the Scripture that says; God formed things out of nothing: Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear… and in Psalms 33:9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast. Hence the Creation account is not without any other witness. Even the Disciples saw the immediate creation in the many acts of healing which Christ had done. To promote the idea that God needed millions of years to create the earth, but took only six days to “dedicate” it has no Scriptural support. “Ancient” Hebrew thought is not our Bible.




    0
    View Comment
  83. I cannot speak personally as to what all is happening in every class at La Sierra. But, with the issues coming from the mouths of very concerned Bible believing SDA students, who have attended and spoken, I would take much concern. This is an issue they have been dealing with long throughout this last year (at the very least). And the video evidence and quoted remarks about what came out of these classes at La Sierra is alarming. It’s no less than what these students have been claiming. If some cannot see anything wrong with what has been taught there, then I see the school’s reason for defending their actions. Apparently there is not enough Biblical and spiritual discernment to see clearly the issues at stake (and I do not say this to insult anyone, so please don’t take offense. That’s not my intent). Perhaps we might just consider the following about what Adventist beliefs actually are:

    “Like the Sabbath, the week originated at creation, and it has been preserved and brought down to us through Bible history. God himself measured off the first week as a sample for successive weeks to the close of time. Like every other, it consisted of seven literal days. Six days were employed in the work of creation; upon the seventh, God rested, and he then blessed this day, and set it apart as a day of rest for man.” -Christian Education, p.190.1

    There are 30 such statements throughout the Spirit of Prophecy. She makes it very clear (as even logic would compel us if we noted the Calendar) that the Biblical Creation week is “7 literal days.” “they were employed in the work of Creation.”

    The Bible itself is crystal clear on this matter. These were not “7 days of inauguration” for some temple. The specific items for each day of Creation are laid out in the plainest detail possible. These in no way represented any great periods of time (as suggested in the “Temple Model” put forth by the instructors in La Sierra’s faith/science class). The grass was created on day 3 (see Gen. 1:11-13). The Sunshine was created on day 4 (v.14-19). Any scientist will tell you that grass won’t survive long without sunshine. The words of the Bible are so plain that a child could understand (this is no insult to any, only a simple reality). The Scriptures describe plainly the Creation of our world. There is no mention of any fancy “Temple theory” (such a theory is merely the invention of men attempting to confuse the plain statement of Scripture in order to make it harmonize more easily with their Evolutionary ideas).

    I hope that it will be clear to all (including Geanna Dane, whose soul I love as one who Christ died for) what are the real issues here. The plainest statements of the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy have been entirely disregarded in the presentations held at La Sierra University. They have been ignored and replaced in the classroom by the pleasing theories of men, attempting to make room in people’s minds for evolutionary thought. This is, clearly, without having any other way to put it, an ATTACK against the Adventist faith. If we must assume that the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy are not trustworthy and clear guides, to be read and understood literally (when the language is clearly literal, not symbolic language), then we have no word of God to rest our faith on. And if you cannot believe that God “created the world” in six days, resting on the 7th, then perhaps you will not be able to believe that “God so loved the world…” (John 3:16), because the same author who wrote that also said that Jesus created the entire world “in the beginning” (John 1:1-3,14). If life get’s horrible and the world gets worse, maybe we’ll find need to re-interpret “God so loved the world.”

    This appears so much to me like the serpent in Genesis 3 saying, “yeah hath God said, ye shall not eat of the fruit of every tree of the garden?…ye shall not surely die” (Gen. 3:1,4). Only a chapter before the Bible records the words of God that they “would surely die” (Gen. 2:17). Satan’s #1 attack against God’s people is to give them reason to doubt the plainest and most clear statements of God. When he is victorious in doing this, he will lead them into every imaginable sin and doubt. That’s exactly what he did to Eve.

    So I pray for the people at La Sierra that there would be more Spiritual discernment on these issues. God’s word and the Spirit of prophecy have been clearly attacked and undermined in the classroom there through the sophistries of men. And so many of those responsible to check this evil and protect the innocent faith of their students have no realization that a great evil has taken place. It’s time for us all to evaluate what we really can believe in, and then prayerfully make some choices about where we want to rest our faith. The three angel’s messages of Revelation 14 (for which purpose the Adventist church exists) declare to the entire apostate world that they are to worship the Creator (Rev. 14:6,7). The Sabbath that we Adventists keep is the memorial of that literal Creation week. If we cannot firmly believe in a God who created the world in six literal days, without the help of some evolutionary processes, then we have a real problem on our hands. Our need is not then to call people to worship Him, but to be called to worship him.

    I understand that the minds of many have been educated to believe in some kind of hybrid, evolutionary/ pseudo creationistic faith. And perhaps you will have a difficult time in placing your faith upon the clear statements of God’s word, but in all reality, if we cannot, it will be difficult for us to have any sort of transforming and/or tenacious faith in Jesus for these days, and the days just ahead. I pray for any one of you who may be struggling with this. May the Lord help us all.




    0
    View Comment
  84. Geanna, I am sorry you could not see the point of the illustration. Perhaps this is why you have such difficulty with preceiving the issues being discussed.

    You said, “By the way I believe in creation.”

    Perhaps you could briefly explain in what way you believe in creation.

    As a side note, how could anyone know “how old” anything was when God created it? Adam was not a new born baby. The trees did not grow from a seed. So, how old were they? Was Adam 20 or 30 years old? And if we can not discern how old anything was when it was created, then we certainly can not know how old rocks or anything else was.

    It may have been one day old historically. But this does not tell us any biological age.

    Why try to be more definitive than the bible? It teaches a 6 literal days of creation with the 7th day Sabbath making up the week. This continuity is unbroken throughout the whole bible.

    Challenges to it are weak and beggarly and without substance. To some extent, it is a waste of time to try and “prove” any other view.

    Christians don’t try to “prove” the bible. We simply present the evidence of what it teaches and the Holy Spirit affirms its validity to any and all who wish to understand and know its message. We make a “confession of faith” and build on this idea. The bible defends itself and we simply affirm what it says. To try and do more is futile.

    Bill Sorensen




    0
    View Comment
  85. Disclaimer: My comments does not represent the views or opinions of Educate Truth

    First: @Geanna Dane I tried to see your side of the issue and frankly, I think you are wrong in your view of what was said in the videos. In a nut shell, the overall theme of both videos is that a change is needed, like upgrading from Adventist v1.0 to Adventist v2.0.

    Second: I believe the only way to save this situation is to fire all the employees, refund student’s accounts, level and completely remove all the buildings, side walks, etc. and the land given away. Educate Truth does not approve of this view, I guess they are hoping things can change but I find that view to be very naïve and almost childish. LSU will not change, doesn’t these videos prove that…

    Third: Where is the Board? As a group, do they know what is happening? If not, why? If yes, than why allow it to continue…

    Lastly: @educatetruth.com We need to face the truth. A cat is a cat and a dog is a dog we need to call it for what it is. What truly is happening at LSU is that satan has a hold; his views are spreading like the wind. That is why closing the school is the only action to end it. The Adventist family is close-knit, and we might have friends that would suffer if the school is closed; closing the school would be very painful to all of us. It is a bitter pill but what we saw in those videos was a little peek into the class that the Board ordered to explain SDA view, and well…




    0
    View Comment
  86. @Geanna Dane: Thank you for pointing that out Geanna. I think I was looking at the remaining time.

    A literal interpretation does not mean literary devices such as parable, allegory, or metaphor are rejected. It does not mean everything in the Bible is taken literally. I think Webster used the word “modern” a bit loosely with the historical grammatical method. If as far back as the reformation is considered modern, then perhaps I’ll give him that one.

    Here’s the problem that I have with what he said in regard to the historical-grammatical method. He lists three qualities of the method:

    1. “THE BIBLE IS SEEN AS A UNIQUE PROPOSITIONAL REVELATION DUE TO ITS SUPERNATURAL ORIGIN.”

    2. “AND IT IS TO BE TAKEN JUST AS IT READS, AS IF IT WERE WRITTEN DIRECTLY TO US TODAY.”

    3. “AND GENESIS IS TAKEN TO BE A DIVINELY REVEALED SCIENCE.”

    But then he concludes with this: “WE FIND BOTH OF THOSE READINGS [literal and mythological] OF THE BIBLE NOT PARTICULARLY HELPFUL. He plainly states the literal (historical-grammatical) method is “not particularly helpful. I tried to point that out in a previous post, but you ignored his conclusions.

    So I stand by my statement, “He just knocked our method of biblical interpretation.”

    I said that Webster offered the temple theology as an example. You said he didn’t. What does the record say:

    (a tad before 13:00) THE FINAL TWO, THAT I THINK MAY BE HELPFUL, IS WHAT I WOULD CALL A FIGURATIVE READINGS, USING LITERARY-CRITICAL METHODS.

    WHERE WE TRY TO SEE THE BIBLICAL TEXTS IN THE CONTEXTS OF OTHER PARTS OF SCRIPTURE.

    AND WHAT’S GOING TO COME NEXT IS GOING TO BE ONE EXAMPLE, I THINK, OF THIS KIND OF WAY OF READING OF SCRIPTURE.

    AND IT’S MUCH MORE USEFUL AND FRUITFUL.

    AND UH IT SUGGEST TO US THAT UH THE OPENING CHAPTERS OF GENESIS MIGHT NOT REALLY BE ABOUT HOW THE WORLD CAME INTO BEING. BUT MIGHT BE ABOUT HOW WE UNDERSTAND THE WORLD AS GOD’S DWELLING PLACE AS THE TEMPLE OF GOD.

    WE WILL HEAR MORE ABOUT THAT IN A MOMENT.

    He’s promoting a figurative reading of Genesis here. The only thing I agree with him here is when he said: “see the biblical texts in the the contexts of other parts of scripture.” It’s beyond me how he can come away with a figurative interpretation of Genesis by comparing scripture with scripture. That’s one of the very methods that gives us strong reasons to think Genesis 1 is depicting actual events.

    In essence his answer to the challenges is to change our (Seventh-day Adventist) method of interpretation, because its not particularly helpful. He then offers the temple theology as an example of a better understanding. Do you understand now where I’m coming from? His rejection of the literal interpretation of Genesis is as explicit as one can get without being didactic.




    0
    View Comment
  87. Every single one of you is being watched by a throng of fellow believers. Fortunately, there is no video record being shared among them with great excitement as they review each sin of yours and dissect it in merriment. The angels and other inhabitants of God’s universe do not rejoince with each discovery of your sin, whether private or public. They do not run to send judgmental messages to each other and to God and say, “see, this person is clearly in sin and must be removed from our midst.”

    There was once division and rancor among the the inhabitants of heaven. A leader stirred up a spirit of divisivness. Eventually, God’s body of believers was rent apart.

    On earth, there can be no revival when there is a prevailing spirit of judgmentalism that seeks to rend apart the church. A divided house will fall, and that is exactly what pleases Satan more than anything else. He loves the divisiveness created by this website and movement. He and his angels take absolute delight in the judgments and criticisms and pontifications that appear here.

    As you and the leaders of this movement continue to judge fellow church members and its leaders, you can rest assured that someone is watching your sins and that you too will be judged one day. I share your sins and I sin as much as any of you (probably more so but perhaps less than the LSU professors; surely you would know). May God have mercy on all of our sick souls.




    0
    View Comment
  88. Fortunately, there is no video record being shared among them with great excitement as they review each sin of yours and dissect it in merriment.

    There is a difference between broadcasting something done in private versus something that was done in a classroom.

    They do not run to send judgmental messages to each other and to God and say, “see, this person is clearly in sin and must be removed from our midst.”

    I’m not advocating these professors be removed from church membership. Having them removed from their position is entirely different than having them removed from “our midst.”

    If you have the time, I recommend you read an article by Samuel Pipim “Don’t judge me!” You seem to be advocating the idea that we shouldn’t judge what is the professors are doing or teaching because we are sinners. Am I correct? I’m not super clear as to what your point was.

    http://www.educatetruth.com/theological/dont-judge-me/




    0
    View Comment
  89. John Webster says the historical-grammatical method of interpretation are “not particularly helpful,” but that the literary-critical and cultural-linguistic method “may be helpful.” The Seventh-day Adventist Church’s approach to biblical interpretation, as outlined in “Methods of Bible Study” voted by the General Conference Executive Committee in 1986, is based on the historical-grammatical method. This method recognizes the Bible as fully inspired, absolutely trustworthy, solely authoritative, and thoroughly consistent in all its parts, since it comes ultimately from one divine mind.

    But in one brief comment, John Webster dismisses the historical-grammatical as “not particularly helpful.” He favors the literary-critical and cultural-linguistic method of interpretation. These methods, along with the historical-critical, assume the Bible is not fully inspired (i.e., some parts of the Bible are more inspired than others); the Bible is not fully trustworthy (because of alleged discrepancies, contradictions, and mistakes); the Bible is not absolutely authoritative in all that it teaches or touches upon (portions allegedly shaped by the personal or cultural prejudices of the writers and their times are “uninspired” and not binding on us); and because of the Bible’s many human writers, there is “diversity” in Scripture (i.e., pluralism or conflicting theologies in the Bible). All of the latter these utilize higher criticism, which in some way treat the Bible as any other human text.

    Webster ends his lecture with his final punch, “I am here to show you that faith can survive. Faith can thrive….” While this is true, what he doesn’t say is that the faith he and the other speakers are presenting is not a faith in the Bible as as fully inspired, absolutely trustworthy, solely authoritative, and thoroughly consistent in all its parts.

    Warren Johns asserts that the “biblical chronology is based on seven cycles–the perfect number seven–of four-hundred-ninety years each.” But instead of presenting the biblical creation week as the absolute beginning of time for earth’s history, he asks three questions: “Must we use this [biblical] chronology to determine our view of the world around us? our view of the history of biology? … or is this chronology used for a different purpose?”

    He suggests Genesis 1 “tells us that God took seven days to create His temple. According to Johns, the temple or tabernacle was “always dedicated in a seven day ceremony.” So the biblical account of creation wasn’t an account of when things were created, it’s an account of when God’s temple was dedicated. He says, “[S]o you need to think in terms more of the days of creation being days of inauguration … this is the dedication of God’s temple which is the cosmos, so he could now enter and have a dwelling place. This happened in seven days.”

    Johns says, “we are now viewing Genesis 1 as figurative–it’s full of symbolism–as well as having a literal time aspect.” He acknowledges seven literal days being depicted in Genesis 1, but makes it clear these “are days of inauguration and not days necessarily of initiation of the beginning.” Also, he leaves open the possibility for millions of years to have transpired on earth prior to the fall.

    He recommends a book called “The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate” as way of “harmonizing science and religion.” The very first proposition of the book states: “…Genesis 1 is ancient cosmology. That is, it does not attempt to describe cosmology in modern terms or address modern questions.”

    Johns clearly does not promote a recent, six-day creation. The first week of Genesis 1 “was set apart as special, but there was a lot of work that went on beforehand,” he says.

    This class clearly undermines our belief in a recent, literal creation week.




    0
    View Comment
  90. “Large donors of the University who have donated while under the impression that LSU furthers the mission of the Adventist Church should not be kept from this information. They should see exactly what their hard earned dollars go for.”
    Sitting around the dinner table at the last ASI Pacific Union Convention, several of us spoke to that fact that we had received calls and letters requesting donations to LSU and have responded by stating that we cannot support an Adventist institution that is presently teaching evolution as fact to the young people of our church. We hope more and more people will do the same.




    0
    View Comment
  91. Sean and Shane,

    Several weeks ago, educatetruth.com stopped accepting new comments. I apparently missed an explanatory note and concluded, incorrectly, that the site would be permanently frozen. So, I went happily about my business with a great sense of relief. I was about ready to thank you for your thoughtfulness. Then, as we all know, it all started up again.

    It seems to me that you’ve made your point. You have held to your position that you do not wish to destroy LSU, you simply want them to be clear about what they are teaching. You have reminded us that many comments on this site do not reflect your purposes. Even Thomas (above) understands that his desire to purge the heretics and flatten the campus is not your desire.

    However, as time continues, you, as the facilitators of this discussion, must accept an increasing responsibility for the comments posted here. In particular, your focus on LSU is unreasonable and unfair. I have previously suggested that you owe your readers a much broader range of information. For at least 60 years, Adventist thinkers have wrestled with the dilemmas presented a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11. That’s why Geoscience Research Institute was formed. However, no matter what we’ve done, no one has found a scientific explanation for how the earth and its life might have come about within the last 10,000 years.

    It is simply not possible to explain within 10,000 years how fossils of dinosaurs and tropical animals have ended up in Antarctica; how the mountains and canyons have formed; how the lava flows of the Columbia basalts and the Deccan Traps have formed and cooled; how the Mediterranean Sea floor formed with its thick salt beds (it nearly dried up several times); how the Hawaiian hot spot and the Yellowstone hot spot have migrated; how the mid-Atlantic rift has formed; how Niagra Falls has come to be; how the ice ages have come and gone along with the rising and falling of the oceans; how the coral reefs have formed; and much more. These things can be reasonably explained, but not within 10,000 years.

    It is time for us to live with diverse opinions. We have multitudes of theologians telling us what we must believe about science, and, it’s not working. Copernicus was right; the church was wrong and the Pope has apologized. The Earth does not have four corners, it does orbit around the Sun, neither Earth nor the Sun is the center of the universe, and all SDA believers are comfortable with that despite the literal readings of Scripture that supported the previous beliefs.

    Science is the honest search for knowledge of the physical world; it’s pursuit will not destroy the young generation. Science is not an instrument of the Devil.

    If the SDA Fundamental Beliefs are so fragile that we can’t encourage students to approach them with an open mind, they must and will be changed.

    It’s time to permanently freeze this site.

    Carlton Cross




    0
    View Comment
  92. And the literal interpretation is how we came up with our unique sanctuary doctrine and our unique end-time eschatology? We only use the one interpretation and reject completely without any further consideration whatsover the other approaches? Why are we the only ones to come up with these beliefs? Should we be in the business of telling all LSU students, many of whom are not Adventists, that only the literal approach leads to truth and any other approach is absolute apostacy?

    Ellen White told us we may need to change our views. Why wasn’t she asked to resign from the church?




    0
    View Comment
  93. Response to criticism posted on the 14th.

    With regard to the creation of light on the first day, I believe it is helpful to notice that the Hebrew word for “light” in verse 3 is ore (Strong’s H216), which differs from the word for “light” in verse 14 which is maw-ore’ (Strong’s H3974). We don’t notice the distinction between these two words for light when we read the text in English, but these two words convey a difference in the intensity and visible manifestation of the light between the first day and the fourth day. The light in verse 3 is an illumination like early sunrise before the sun actually comes up, but not a bright light such as the sun makes on a clear day. The illumination in verse 3 is a shrouded light like the amount of light on an overcast day, whereas the word for light in verse 14 is the revelation or appearance of the sources of light or the luminaries. Verse 14 tells of the bright light of direct sunlight or such as a spotlight or a dazzling chandelier might provide. Verse 3 tells us that light appeared in the dense darkness and God established the day and night cycle with this shrouded light. However, it is not until day 4 that the bright light of a visible sun strikes the surface of the Earth.

    The first word of Genesis 1, rê’shîyth (ray-sheeth’), indicates the Earth, sun, moon, solar system, stars, and universe were created by God a long time ago, but the Earth remained unorganized and useless until the events beginning in verse 3. The atmosphere around Earth was so dense that no light could penetrate through to reach the ocean surface. Since the sun marks our sense of time, the surface of Earth existed without any time marker before light was allowed to reach the surface. On day one, God changed the atmosphere enough to allow some of the sun’s light to penetrate the dense cloud cover of the Earth and establish the daily time cycle. In the context of the story of creation, the absence of light before day one tells us there was an absence of any time marker. The sun and moon are given to mark the days, months, years, and Elohiym’s appointment times.

    Because the Earth is mentioned in verse 1 as having been created in the distant past and we know planet Earth revolves around the sun, so the sun, moon, and stars were also created in the distant past. Some of the sun’s light was allowed to penetrate the dense darkness on the first day, but it was not until the fourth day of organizing Earth as a biosphere that the sunlight had burned off the cloud cover enough so the surface of the Earth was fully exposed to the sun.

    The sun, moon, and stars were there from the time God created the solar system and universe in the distant past, but it would now be important for the creatures made in the next two days to have a visible sun and daily time cycle. The daily time cycle is also important to keep track of God’s appointment times with us. We are told on day four that God has an entire set of sacred appointment times planned for us, and this is stated before the weekly day of rest arrives on day seven.

    Please notice that, while God is identified as the creator of these sources of light in verse 16, verse 14-16 do not say that God created the sun, moon, and stars on the 4th day of organizing planet Earth as a place to live. The fourth day of creation is merely the first day when light from the luminaries (the sun, moon, and stars) could land on the surface of the Earth. My translation of verses 14-16.

    14Then Elohiym said, “Let luminaries appear in the sky to divide the day from the night. Let them serve as signs to mark the beginning of days, years, and my sacred appointment times 15as they shine in the sky and shed light on the Earth” and it was done.
    16 Elohiym created two great lights, the sun to shine during the day and the moon to shine at night. He made the stars also. 17Elohiym established them in the sky to shed light on the Earth, 18to rule during the day and at night, and to divide the light from the darkness; Elohiym was pleased with His work. 19There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

    On day five, God made water life and the birds.

    On day six, God made the land animals and humans. Twice He declared it was good, first after making the land animals and then after making man.

    Byron Comp wrote on the 14th: “One other point: you don’t capitalize the word “spirit” where you refer to the third Person of the Godhead and His role in the creation process. Is this intentional?”

    The word rûach (roo’-akh) in verse 2 is the ordinary word for breath or wind, and is not written in the Hebrew as a proper noun so that it should be capitalized to indicate a person. Hebrew letters do not have capital or lower case alternatives, so it is the sentence structure that indicates a proper noun when a word like rûach (roo’-akh) appears in the text. In its ordinary use, the word rûach (roo’-akh) is not the proper name of a person. While the initial creation of the universe and planet Earth is mentioned in verse 1, no creative action is described in verse 2 where rûach (roo’-akh) appears in the text. Making this instance of rûach (roo’-akh) a proper noun in the English is done so only because of the bias of the translator and I believe misrepresents the Hebrew text. Translating rûach (roo’-akh) as the breath of Elohiym was intentional because that is how the text literally reads.

    Ron D Henderson wrote: “Remember this folks, English or any other language is the same.” Obviously, Ron has never struggled with translating words and phrases from one language to another to capture the meaning and inflection of the original author. Just the opposite of what Ron stated is actually the truth: all languages are different. Sentence structure, syntax, idiomatic expressions, and every other aspect of one language is different from every other language. Often times there is no direct word-for-word comparison from one language to another so that the translator is required to make a best estimate of the meaning. This is the primary reason there are so many translations of scripture and all of them are valuable in one way or another. Ron accuses me of misapplying scripture, but he’s only provided a theoretical example of a misapplication and has not identified any errors in my translation.

    There is nothing in what I’ve translated that endorses or promotes evolution. The Earth did not evolve during the many years from when Elohiym created planet Earth until the time He began to organize it into a viable place for life. The text is certain that for all those years it remained a chaotic and useless place. There is a certain sense in which the hovering of Elohiym over the surface of the waters connotes His protecting it from any changes that could be said to be evolutionary. All the events of creation week occur within the six literal days of Genesis 1.

    Moreover, none of this diminishes the fact that the creation of the universe in the distant past, as well as all the events of creation week in Genesis 1, took place at the direct and specific command of Elohiym. None of His creative power demonstrated in the distant past had become infirmed over the years. The Creator of the universe was just as agile and powerful in organizing planet Earth into a biosphere as He had been in bringing the universe into existence at its origin.

    Cordially,

    Jerry




    0
    View Comment
  94. Dr. Mills comment was very appropriate. ^^

    Geanna, you seem to be attempting to exhort and preach greater faithfulness to God and righteousness in action.

    OK, perhaps some speak too strongly at times on this forum. But, doesn’t it seem that you are trying to take the spec out of your brothers eye when you have a beam in yours?

    Here is why I say that. Perhaps there are some here that are critical. But how does God view *you* ???

    While some here might be too critical at times (possibly), God says that *you* are subscribing to and encouraging “the worst kind of infidelity.” See The Spirit of Prophecy Folume One, page 86.

    While you believe and encourage others to believe “the worst kind of infidelity,” can you expect to be saved??

    God has spoken. Woudln’t you do well to tremble?? You are making light of *the worst kind of infidelity.*




    0
    View Comment

Comments are closed.