Educate Truth shares the following article from Spectrum as a service to readers.
“Two administrators, one professor, and one board member were asked to resign on Friday,” according to Spectrum blog editor Alexander Carpenter.
The president and the provost of La Sierra University regret to announce the resignations of four members of our university family.
On Friday, June 10, Board Chair Ricardo Graham requested the resignations of Dr. Jeff Kaatz from his position as Vice President for University Advancement, Dr. Jim Beach from his position as Dean of the College of Arts & Sciences, Dr. Gary Bradley from his part-time faculty position in the Biology Department, and Mr. Lenny Darnell from the Board of Trustees.
These resignations have been accepted and are effective immediately. Campus administration is unable, at this time, to offer any additional details regarding the decisions of these individuals. Further information will be made available as appropriate.
We invite you to keep our campus in your prayers as we move through this difficult time for the university.
UPDATE 6/13/11: It’s been confirmed from multiple sources that these resignations have nothing to do with the biology department. LSU has not yet given a reason for the resignations.
UPDATE 6/17/11: Beach and Kaatz are both still employed at La Sierra University as tenured faculty. Bradley, Beach, and Kaatz were all at-will employees in the positions they resigned from.
@Jeff: It’s job! The sanctimonious tone I hear from most at Spectrum is unnecessary. All of us can point at others who have been un-Christian, but the reality is these men broke their contract and said some things they shouldn’t have.
It’s terrible thing to lose one’s job, especially these days, but these men were clearly undermining the church’s beliefs and probably more if the recording sees the light of day.
Alcohol is a big deal. Most who think its trivial that they were fired over it obviously don’t have a problem with drinking alcohol.
Shane Hilde(Quote)
View CommentI didn’t hear anything having to do with an academic contract I’ve ever seen–and I’ve signed my fair share.
I didn’t hear any of this, either. The conversation was largely about the comments made by and positions held by various people and accrediting organizations, including those they agreed with and those they disagreed with. Unfortunately, they made light of a few individuals, just as happens right here at Educate Truth.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentAre you suggesting that the their contract has nothing to do with the faculty handbook and all it the policies it contains?
Alcohol consumption as a leader in our church and even a member is undermining to our beliefs and the Christian lifestyle.
Shane Hilde(Quote)
View CommentI don’t recall hearing anything remotely resembling something akin to “we are going to believe in and teach theistic evolution no matter what the Church has to say.” In fact, I don’t think I could tell you, from the conversation, what the position was on this issue for ANY of the conversants.
You guys are WAY too deep into gossip. It’s unseemly and ungodly.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentNo–I’m not suggesting anything of the sort. I don’t know how alcohol got tied into the resignation letter because I heard only one reference to an alcoholic drink (in relation to anyone having a desire to drink it during or after a future church group meeting) and heard no comments such as “I’ll have some more wine.” Again, I might have missed something. I suspect the alcohol “evidence” was independent of the discussion, and I’m restricting my comments to what I heard on the tape, none of which would relate to a contract (in my honest opinion).
You guys are like an open container of popcorn in the microwave, bouncing wildly off the walls.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View Comment@Professor Kent: I’m speculating of course, but I lean toward the recording being the clencher in all of this. I’m sure people who have it are wildly passing it around and eventually it will surface. Then commenters won’t have to rely on your assessment.
Shane Hilde(Quote)
View Comment@Ron Stone M.D.:
Graduated Andrews 1961 with BA religion, incidently one of the only two seniors who passed the graduate record exam. Several failed to score at all in the humanities section. Sad commentary on the narrow “education” we had paid for.
Professors were luminaries such as E R Thiele, D A Augsburger, Sakai Kubo, Ivan Blazen, Seigfried Horn and others deceased.
Seminary leadership was forced out or restrained in later years as Gerhard Hasel was imposed by GC leaders. That was the end of un-restricted Bible scholarship. We were taught to understand the Bible through the experience of the authors in the context of their audience. Now we must only teach what religionists of the last 100 years think the author meant. Disregarding archeology and literary knowledge which has increased.
We learned to see the spiritual beauty and grandeur in the allegorical majesty of the creation myths handed down to Isreal from even more ancient cultures.
Now there are seminary faculty who state in church publications that the laws of Leviticus are still in effect. A view that would surely have astonished EGW.
David Bee(Quote)
View Comment@Shayne Vincent:
I am not capable of imagining that Ezra and his editors were capable of formulating modern knowledge of astronomy and geography in ways valuable to his readers 2600 years ago.
Not sure how he would have expailned DNA, genetics, bacteria to an Israel of 600 BC, even one exposed to the unversity of Bablyon’s pofessors.
Pretty sure prophets of every age must speak within the knowledge base of their audience. Would EGW have kept her audience if she had revealed the actual earth age or the truth that masturbation does not cause disease?
Inspiration fails to inspire if it speaks in tongues.
David Bee(Quote)
View Comment@Shane Hilde:
Not a lawyer just a semi-retired guy who has sat on many boards.
David Bee(Quote)
View Comment@Shane Hilde:
Might be a goopd idea not to abet a felony by passing around the transcript or the recording.
David Bee(Quote)
View Comment@David Bee: If I had it, I’d feel compelled to publish it.
Shane Hilde(Quote)
View CommentEither Patti thinks Ricardo Graham is a member of the GC and that the GC owns and runs LSU or she thinks that the LSU board should not take the action that it did in cases like this.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View Comment@David Bee:
For very spiritual thoughts on evolution I reccommend Professor Haught’s Op-Ed piece below.
Darwin, God, and the drama of life
By John F. Haught
Woodstock Theological Center
Evolution makes very good sense scientifically speaking. But does it make good sense theologically as well? Not everyone thinks it does. Religious believers who find evolution contrary to faith usually do so because they are focusing on the complex “design” that scientists have discovered in cells and organisms. They insist that life’s chemically and physically improbable architecture points to a divine intelligence that current biology cannot explain. Evolution-inspired atheists, however, usually respond that the architecture of cells and organisms is imperfect, even though awe-inspiring. “This imperfection–the manifold design flaws of life–,” writes David Barash of the University of Washington, “points incontrovertibly to a natural, rather than a divine process, one in which living things were not created de novo, but evolved.”
I propose, however, that religious thought can make significant contact with Darwin’s science if instead of focusing on design it turns its attention to the drama of life. The typically design-obsessed frame of mind through which so many devout theists, as well as staunch atheists, are looking at the question of God and evolution is a dead end both scientifically and theologically.
Religious conservatives have desperately tried to introduce the idea of “intelligent design” into their pre-Darwinian idealization of scientific understanding. But in doing so they have overlooked the grandeur that Darwin saw in the larger story of life. Ironically, contemporary evolutionary materialists (Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Jerry Coyne, for example), are as preoccupied with design as their anti-Darwinian religious opponents. They too have seized Darwin’s rich story of life and bled the drama right out of it.
Claiming that Darwin has disposed of divine design, atheistic evolutionists assume that science has thereby wiped away the last traces of deity from the record of life. Yet they have failed to notice that the very features of evolution–unpredictable accidents, predictable natural selection, and the long reach of time–that seem to rule out the existence of God, are essential ingredients in a monumental story of life that turns out to be much more interesting theologically than design could ever be.
The most important issue in the current debate about evolution and faith is not whether design points to deity but whether the drama of life is the carrier of a meaning. According to rigid design standards, evolution appears to have staggered drunkenly down multiple pathways, leading nowhere. But viewed dramatically, the apparent absence of perfect order at any present moment is an opening to the future, a signal that the story of life is not yet over.
To make sense of the drama of life, therefore, we shall have to wait–a disposition essential to any mature religious faith. For if evolution has an eternally sanctioned “point,” we should expect that it would presently be hidden in the narrative depths of life rather than manifested in the always imperfect instances of design that float along on life’s surface. Dramatic stories, unlike complex living systems or elaborately structured molecular states, have the potential to carry a truly deep significance. But it is the nature of stories that they have comic twists and tragic turns, and that they take time to unfold.
So whatever meaning the drama of life may be carrying cannot become transparent to our present intellectual efforts or scientific observations. Again, we have to wait.
A theological reading of evolution, I am suggesting, looks for an alternative to the rigor mortis of perfect design, and this is why Darwin’s ragged portrait of life is not so distressing after all. Theologically understood, biological evolution is part of an immense cosmic journey into the incomprehensible mystery of God. Any possible meaning it has will reside at a level of narrative depth unfathomable by the mathematical nets of physical science, by armchair observation, or by minds fixated on design.
According to a biblically inspired theology of nature, beneath life’s diversity, descent, and flawed design, stirs an evolutionary drama that has been aroused, though not coercively driven, by a God of infinite love. The cosmos is called continually into being by a Creator who wills, but does not force, truly interesting outcomes to emerge in surprising new ways. God, as scripture suggests, is the one who “makes all things new.” The drama of life and its evolution is a response to this invitation.
John F. Haught, Ph. D., is Senior Fellow, Science & Religion, at Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University.
David Bee(Quote)
View CommentSo, your world of distant decades past has changed? Welcome to what we call “reality!”
Ron Stone M.D.(Quote)
View CommentInteresting but it misses the point for Moses.
Moses DID know what a day was and he did know what a year was. (Apparently even the Sumerians before him were well acquanted with that concept.)
The “problem” with the Bible account of creation as compared to blind faith in evolutionism is NOT in the Bible’s presentation of “DNA” the problem is in its presentation of “What a DAY is”.
Once we all agree to the obvious point that both Moses and the Sumerians before him knew exactly what a day and a year were – the problem for marrying the Bible to evolutionism is clear as day!
No need to wander off into DNA-land before the contradiction between those two religions becomes apparent.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentI would argue two points to the contrary.
1. Birds-come-from-reptiles fictions do not make good science because that idea like all of the salient points in the evolutionists line of stories – is not observable in nature, nor is it reproducible, nor testable except to observe its absence. (It is tantamount to a theological argument.)
2. Atheist evolutionist prefer the storytelling in evolutionism (as flawed as it is) because they have no other choice as atheists.
Christians who get befuddled by arguments in favor of blind faith devotion to evolutionism have failed to apply the critical thinking necessary in point 1 above.
And of course – the Bible cannot be married to evolutionism – as Darwin points out — as Dawkins points out.. and as the SDA publication 3SG 90-91 points out.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentFirst of all Lev 19:18 “Love your neighbor as yoursef” has never been rejected by Ellen White or SDAs or the Christian church or Christ himself.
Secondly – the Lev 11 law of clean and unclean meats was strongly endorsed by Ellen White.
So also the Lev 18 prohibitions against gross moral sins that God calls abominiations for which he would wipe out even a pagan nation not just a believing nation.
Your sweeping statements are made without careful attention to detail.
Seventh-day Adventists have a Bible with 66 books -not just 27 that have been downsized to 23 by so-called “new theology”.
BTW – I am surprised you did not list Heppenstall in your highlight section.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentGreat post, Bob. The idea that bible characters were a bunch of idiotic backwaters who were clueless about the world is a standard mantra of progressives, who, of course, place themselves as examples of sophisticated, educated, wise “lords” over the bible and over us peons and serfs.
Ron Stone M.D.(Quote)
View Comment@BobRyan:
What christian loving way shuld I use to kill my daughter who chose to leave the Adventist chruch? Or is that Leviticus instruction only for Jews?
I trust you folllow the menstrual purity laws carefully then?
David Bee(Quote)
View Comment@Ron Stone M.D.:
Do you know of a reputable Bible scholar who believes Moses actually wrote the pentatuch as we have it now? You might ask Dr Davidson at Andrews what he believes.
David Bee(Quote)
View Comment@Ron Stone M.D.:
Amazing that you would beliee I thought Ezra and com;any were uninformed. In fact I made it clear they had likely been exposed to the learning of or perhaps even trained at the U of Babylon.
Surely he had access to the best scientific minds available. It is just that truth can’t proceed beyond the ability of the hearer to understand. I believe Paul spoke of this.
What was science to Ezra and his editors was no longer all true in Christ’s day as knowledge continued to increase. Paul had access to the more advanced science of the first century being able to read both Greek and Latin as well as the languages of Israel. Not that the Babylonians didn’t also have great astronomic knowledge.
David Bee(Quote)
View Comment@BobRyan:
Sorry, I forgot that excellent Christ loving theologian who also was exiled to Loma Linda.
David Bee(Quote)
View Comment@BobRyan:
How much Dawkins have you actually read?
David Bee(Quote)
View Comment@Ron Stone M.D.:
Sad indeed that we hae lost our understanding of how “Inslpiration” works. I believe we do still officially oppose the notion that the words of the Bible were inspired. Good thing too when we discovered that the writer of Daniel did not say what was in the manuscript the King James translators had at hand. Finding older more reliable texts is exciting but sometimes disturbing. Consider haw many years the actual manuscripts of the Dead Sea Scrolls were kept secret. Someone powerful thught they were dangerous.
David Bee(Quote)
View Comment@BobRyan:
Of course the Romman Catholic church fouond no difficulty with the Bible and evolution, officaily proclaiming that evolution was how God created the universe. I believe this teaching became official around 1996 or so.
David Bee(Quote)
View CommentSince you’re such an expert, please inform us of how “inspiration” actually works!
Ron Stone M.D.(Quote)
View CommentSo, what are the names of the “reputable scholars” in our SDA Church who deny this?
Ron Stone M.D.(Quote)
View Comment@BobRyan: \
The problem for any believer is to decide who has the authority to say certain Biblical regulations are now outdated. Is it now OK to eat pork since pig meat has a lower saturated fat content than beef?
Ultitmately any believer who wishes to approach the Bible with reason and faith must decide if he is competent to extract truth or if he must rely on someone else. In either case the believer stands alone in choosing.
The thousands of Godly caring Christians who study the Bible carefully and differ in their understanding have to be comfortable with their choice of authority. Those of course, who have never read a “Harmony of the Gospels” may never have to wonder why these “Inspired” books tell the story so differently.
We Adventists have largely decided to let the “church’ be that authority relinquishing the advice of EGW to be individual diligence students of the WORD.
EGW had no reluctance ot change her views based on better eviden so in my view (colored by my mother’s stories of conversations with Sr White’s long time secretary) She was a great progressive. Unfortunately we have too many leaders whose brains are hardwired to reject new beliefs even when sound evidence is provided.
David Bee(Quote)
View Comment@Ron Stone M.D.:
I am sure none of our Old Testament scholars believe the pentatuch as we have it is the original work of Moses. Ezra clearly states he edited the work and internal literary evidence points to a most careful arrangement to create a truly literary result. The great commentary “The Anchor Bible” has much info.
David Bee(Quote)
View CommentThat all depends on what the original authority and argument for the Lev 11 command was.
Does Lev 11 in your Bible ever say “as long as pork has a higher fat content than beef it is unlcean for you”? Mine doesn’t.
When I look at the actual fundamental belief dealing with unclean meat – there is no mention in the statement itself “eat whatever has lower fat content” in my copy of the 28FB. Does yours have that in it?
If none of that is working for your suggestion above – then where in the world does it come from?
Remember we cannot resort to an “any ol excuse will do” solution for dodging the Fundamental Beliefs.
Here we are just appealing to some objective critical thinking to notice that you have yet to give a reason for ignoring Lev 11 that has anything to do with the initial reason we listened to Lev 11 to start with.
We get that all the time from our Catholic friends – I thought we got past that part when we decided to be “Protestant”. What did I miss?
True – but here again you have the Protestant “sola scriptura” principle for testing doctrine as opposed to “soal whatever preference you happen to have”.
I thought we covered that ground when we decided that the Millerite 1844 date was correct and then that the IJ doctrine was correct no matter popular opinion to the contrary.
Again – what part have I missed? We are you circling back to questions that were solved long ago?
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentI agree the RCC does embrace evolution – and praying to the dead.
What is your point on that?
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentSo, please name all of these SDA scholars who you claim have this belief.
Ezra doesn’t count!
Ron Stone M.D.(Quote)
View CommentYou said Ellen White rejects the book of Leviticus. I point to several chapters in that book where it is undeniable that she accepted it fully – then you “switch” to the issue of civil laws that existed under a Theocracy.
Each time we mention Lev 11 or the Sabbath to our non-SDA friends they immediately come back with the issue you mention above – regarding the civil laws in Israel that were unique under a theocracy.
When those non-SDAs do that we usually point out that obvious fact that civil laws applicable under a theocracy – are not necessarily applicable outside of a theocracy which is one obvious reason that we accept the OT restrictions enforcing observance of the Sabbath – but oppose those same restrictions today as a violation of the separation of Church and state.
They are only allowed under a theocracy and we won’t have one of those again – until the 2nd coming.
ok – so that is just the already-solved part that we have been sharing with non-SDAs for over a century.
My question for you is what are you thinking as an SDA here? I presume that you found a problem with the solution already found for that problem in our classic SDA-to-nonSDA discussions.
What is it?
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentMissed the art where Ezra claims to have changed something Moses wrote.
Text please.
Deuteronomy 34 with the account of Moses’ death is clearly “added” but it is not a case of editing the text that Moses wrote.
you seem to be “reaching”.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentDavid Bee, you are arguing the case about not really accepting what the Bible says in places – on this thread about the 4 resignations at LSU. Is it your claim that if we discount enough of the Bible then those resignations would not have been necessary?
What is your connection between these two topics.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentAlthough not a direct connection, the progresive belief that some of the bible is not as “inspired” as others, or it really isn’t “inspired” has a lot to with why LSU has the problems that it has now.
Ron Stone M.D.(Quote)
View CommentThe progressive mantra that nothing is salvational is also a way Bradley could get off. Since nothing really matters, who cares about teaching “evolution as fact” boozing it up, and discussing a “mutiny” against the SDA Church by LSU.
Ron Stone M.D.(Quote)
View CommentHere is how the LSU side of “spin doctoring” works –
I point out that in the gang-of-four incident Bradley is the only one on public record (exempting that recording of course) in the tank for evolutionism.
BobRyan said : Bradley is the only person (among the four) that clearly has a link to the sacrifice-all-for-evolutinism strategy in the LSU biology department based on his own statements to the press.
I then point out that Kent is the only one trying to drag in the “entire university” as the scope of those who argue for evolutionism at LSU.
Kent gets someone to take the bait.
Well as can be seen in Kent’s own post above – he is the one dragging out the scope of “The entire university” into this.
not me.
And if you had actually included the full quote from my post you referenced above that point would have been clear.
I note that you carefully deleted the key statement in that post.
http://www.educatetruth.com/news/lsu-board-news-release-and-actions/comment-page-1/#comment-6304
My post clearly points to this as LSU administration and LSU board actions. The context simply shows that they speak for the university at that level but never does the post argue that the entire university (every man, woman and child) is in the tank for evolutionism’s defense if not its belief.
In fact I repeatedly point to the biology and religion departments as the problem areas and have repeatedly given examples of success at LSU as in my often repeat of the enlightened actions of the LSU Chemistry and Physics department during Walter Veith’s visit on campus at LSU in the past month or so.
The spin doctoring that must be engaged in to support the various problems at LSU (as if they were a good thing) is astounding.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentI note that some people over at the “big left tent” are in effect arguing that to be employed at LSU is to be saved – and to resign is to be “lost”. It is as if every saved person has the right to be employed at LSU and denying them that right is to claim that they are lost.
I find that entire line of reasoning rather odd.
But more to the point – Bonnie Dweyer’s article over there casts a lot of doubt on whether any SDA parent would want their student taught by, or a school managed by such character.
I believe that some of our “progressive” friends are so bent on compromise with the world that they have totally missed the point of view that most SDA parents are considering when deciding where to send their students. Hopefully those progressives will get a clue pretty soon before they run LSU entirely in the ground all the while imagining that they are supporting LSU.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentThat type of reasoning is very common at Spectrum and AT. “Oh, my! Look at what the big, bad, SDA Church did to so-and so! Now they’re kicked out of heaven.”
As if, as you stated, people have some sort of “right” to employment by the SDA Church, especially those tearing down our bible-based beliefs.
Ron Stone M.D.(Quote)
View CommentBy the way, does anyone know whether Beach and Kaatz are still employed at LSU as faculty (teaching)? They each had administrative positions at La Sierra. Beach was a Dean, at-will employee, and Kaatz was VP, an at-will employee, but both of them them were tenured faculty. Beach teaches math and Kaatz teaches music, so if that’s all true they’re still employed at LSU as faculty and they lost their administrative positions and probably a pay dock.
So really the only person who lost his job was Bradley, and he was also an at-will employee planning to retire any year now. He still has his pension etc. I’m guessing.
Shane Hilde(Quote)
View Comment@BobRyan:
I’ve got news for you: parents don’t decide which college their kids go to. Our of my graduating class of roughly 60 students from an Adventist college, I don’t know of a single student who didn’t make his or her own choice on where to go to college. Parents are irrelevant, its the student who decides whether to go to an Adventist college or not, and which specific college to go to. Nice try though.
Adventist kid(Quote)
View CommentOh really? Then please explain why every SDA parent I know has tens of thousands of dollars “invested” in their kids education at SDA schools.
I am also told that they (parents) has a lot to say where their kids go. And, with LSU being what it is, I think a lot of SDA parents will have some “second thoughts” about such a place, as far as getting a real SDA education.
If mom and pop’s pursestrings are tied up, kiddo may NOT be going to whatever school they want.
Ron Stone M.D.(Quote)
View CommentBeach and Kaatz are not listed on the faculty roster, just on the administrative list. If that means anything.
Ron Stone M.D.(Quote)
View CommentEither Patti thinks Ricardo Graham is a member of the GC and that the GC owns and runs LSU or she thinks that the LSU board should not take the action that it did in cases like this.in Christ,Bob
Patti is continuing the myth that the GC actually fired these characters, instead of what the facts state, which is Graham heard the tape and asked for their resignations.
I’ve heard the tapes, thus I know WHY Graham did what he did. Listen for yourselves.
Ron Stone M.D.(Quote)
View CommentI don’t think they would have changed the website listings that fast. Their resignation was only from their administrative positions.
Shane Hilde(Quote)
View CommentAre you telling me they are still going to teach at LSU?! Has this been addressed by LSU or anyone else?
Ron Stone M.D.(Quote)
View Comment@Ron Stone M.D.: That’s what my understanding.
Shane Hilde(Quote)
View CommentIf that is true, and I having listened to the recordings and made notes, I think the recording should be made public, so the SDA Church, the LSU constituency, including parents of students, and all others be made aware of what kind of characters we have running LSU and teaching our students.
The statements on this recording are definitely not “benign” or “harmless” in any way!
Ron Stone M.D.(Quote)
View Comment@Ron Stone M.D.: I agree, and that’s one reason we’re seeing so much push back.
Shane Hilde(Quote)
View CommentThe total lack of any respect for fellow teachers, administrators, Board members, NAD officials, and even other SDA colleges and universities is amazing.
The arrogant attitude of all on this tape is astounding. You gotta get a copy and listen! You’ll hear WHY they resigned, rather than have the tape made public.
I’m not kidding!
Ron Stone M.D.(Quote)
View Comment@Ron Stone M.D.:
Continue to believe that if you want. Not a scientific sample to say the least, but I just asked roughly 80 high school graduates from this year whether they chose which school they were going to or if their parents did. I didn’t even get ten who said their parents limited their choices or prevented them from going to their first choice.
Adventist kid(Quote)
View CommentTime for a new survey. Put the tape online, ask SDA Churchmembers to listen to it, and then vote whether they believe these characters should be teaching or students or leading our SDA institutions.
Do it like the previous ones, with Name, Church offiliation, etc.(in order to verify, i.e. no anonymouses) ) I’d like to see how our actual SDA members see this thing.
Ron Stone M.D.(Quote)
View CommentI’ll continue to believe what I actually see and hear, not some biased opinion from you.
Ron Stone M.D.(Quote)
View Comment@Ron Stone M.D.:
Fair enough. Care to explain why most of the sites to help select colleges are aimed at students, not parents? Do parents go set up profiles at Zinch or any of the other sites?
I just graduated from high school, got courted by a huge number of colleges thanks to scoring in the top 3% on the SAT, a great GPA and extensive extracurriculars. Note that they courted me not parents.
Adventist kid(Quote)
View Comment@BobRyan:
Just dealing with the issue of EGW’s understanding of inspiration. SDA church clearly teaches that the words of the Bible are not inspired. This avoids the uproar of trying to decide which manuscript or translation is closest to the original “word”. Because language and useage (consider how few uf us speak in the language of the KJV) change over time, scholars can determin approximately when a particular manuscript was written or edited. When EZRA and compnay edited the Bible they used current literary styles and carefully arranged the stories. For example, the first ten books of the Hebrew Bible each have one but only one story of the breaking of one of he ten commandments.
The stories follow the order of the commandments. Actually I think there are only 9 stories as one commandments is left out for reasons I no longer recall.
Some of Moses’ original words may well be in the pentatech. Comparisons of the Bible manuscripts available with contemporary literature helps to determine how ancient the literary style and language is. This is where archeology and language studies are so helpful.
David Bee(Quote)
View Comment@Ron Stone M.D.:
Tenured professors have a formal protective process before they can be terminated. Both resigned possible from their tenured positions as well.
David Bee(Quote)
View Comment@BobRyan:
My problem lies in turning over the decision as to which of the pre-christian rules we should keep to “church” authorities.
As a community we decided to make drinking alcohol “bad” even though the scripture never says so, merely warning against misuse.
This is a valid role of church as community. Of course the community can change such rules at will. Hopefully based on adequate evidence. The SDA community has clearly done this with regard to caffiene, cheese and spices since we no longer believe these foods lead to excessive libido and the resultant early demise Kellog thought excessive sexuality produced.
AS individuals, we may differ with the commuinity and the SDA church has been traditionally very considerate of these variations. Hence many committed SDA do in fact disbelieve in a 6 day cration and a recent world wide flood because they value science over myths that go back to dawn of writing. Even though the glorious Genesis stories (myths) of creation and the fall inform of God’s love in a particularly powerful way.
David Bee(Quote)
View Comment@BobRyan:
Were the purity and menstruation laws applicable only in a theocracy. Orthodox Jews today still observe them as they wait for Messiah.
David Bee(Quote)
View CommentDo you know this or just a guess? I certainly hope they’re gone from LSU completely!
Ron Stone M.D.(Quote)
View CommentThey may be “courting” you, but SDA (not necessarily public schools) also know that parents should be comfortable with the reputation of the school.
LSU knows that these embarrassing events are going to be more important to “explain” to adult parents, alumni, and others.
Don’t think so. Then listen to the tape!
Ron Stone M.D.(Quote)
View CommentWhat is your point? That you want to toss out Lev 11? Lev 18? Lev 19:18?
That you found something in Ellen White’s writings that suggest your argument above is valid excuse for ignoring scripture?
At some point accepting the text of scripture goes beyond preference.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentHence? “Cheese and sugar… hence many committed SDAs do in fact disbelieve in a 6 day creation “??
That is a nonsequitter.
All of our atheist friends make that claim.
We keep pointing out to them that the Bible is not myth.
That we base (and test) our doctrines “sola scriptura”.
That bending the bible to meet the dictats of atheist evolutionist doctrines on origins is a resort to eisegesis that Bible students are not inclined to take.
That birds do not in fact come from reptiles.
That there is no science at all saying that an all powerful God did not create the world in 6 days – such notions are beyond science’s ability to prove or disprove.
That as 3SG 90-94 states the Theistic Evolutionist POV is the worst form of infidelity – because it is infidelity in disguise.
Hint: at no point has SDA doctrine insisted that Scripture is nothing more than myth.
But Dawkins asserts that point all the time.
To each his own.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentI am sure at lot of students going to Southern would agree with you.
But you have not made your case yet.
The problem with the LSU fiasco is that SDA parents are the one’s paying for the education in most cases. Some of them may be inclined to have schools blindly selected. But a great many “will care”.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentIn order to count oneself as a member of an established organization which defines itself and it’s members in a certain way, one must meet the definition of members thereof.
If one does not meet the definitions established by the organization for it’s members, then one is not able to accurately call oneself a member.
If one continues to call oneself a member of an organization, while not meeting it’s definitions of it’s own members, then one is lying about one’s own status as members. Possibly and likely including lying to oneself.
—–
Less logician-sounding:
You can’t call yourself a member of a group while not being what the group defines it’s own members to be.
Kevin(Quote)
View CommentHey Guys – one thought. I don’t feel this whole thing is of the mind of Christ. Regardless of what happened…here’s a quote of where our hearts should be:
•There are many whose religion consists in criticising habits of dress and manners. They want to bring every one to their own measure. They desire to lengthen out those who seem too short for their standard, and to cut down others who seem too long. They have lost the love of God out of their hearts; but they think they have a spirit of discernment. They think it is their prerogative to criticise, and pronounce judgment; but they should repent of their error, and turn away from their sins… Let us love one another. Let us have harmony and union throughout our ranks. Let us have our hearts sanctified to God. Let us look upon the light that abides for us in Jesus. Let us remember how forbearing and patient He was with the erring children of men. We should be in a wretched state if the God of heaven were like one of us, and treated us as we are inclined to treat one another.
o The Review and Herald (27 August 1889), p. 530.
Krystaldo(Quote)
View CommentGood quote Krystaldo. Very good.
Professor Kent’s Student(Quote)
View Comment@BobRyan:
The following website does a fine job of summarizing the evidence regarding Bible authorship and varying views on the data.
Worth a few minute of anyone’s time who cares about the Bible.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1985/who-wrote-the-bible-part-1
“Solo-scriptura” need not imply an unreasoning devotion to specific words even if one can read the oldest available manuscripts in their original language.
The Biblical Research Institute at the GC should have several papers available on the topic of Bible authorship and inspiration.
We don’t accept that the Psalms in our Bible that were found to be copies of hymns to Baal written hundreds of years before the kingdom of Isreal are less glorious and worshipful becasue they could not have been inspired by the Holy Spirit.
David Bee(Quote)
View Comment@BobRyan:
‘
What about Paul’s advice to Luke to take a litle wine for his stomach’s sake?
David Bee(Quote)
View Comment@BobRyan:
My point is that each of us at some pont decides what authority we will rely upon. If persued deeply enough, of course, that authority is our own intellect. As individuals we accept the Bible as verbally inspired or give ourselves or some person or orginization the authority to parse it for us.
David Bee(Quote)
View Comment@BobRyan:
Somehouw I must have missed EGW’s advice on ritual purification baths and abstaining from intercourse post menstruation for the approved days.
David Bee(Quote)
View CommentShane, It seems like just about everyone has heard it, why not just share it with everyone and let all decide what is actually said and what it means?
Ron Stone M.D.(Quote)
View CommentSomehow I missed the connection between that and the Historic-Grammatical hermeneutic for simply rendering the text accurately – then testing all doctrine “sola scriptura” to the point of actually accepting the Bible teaching on the real 7 day creation week “For in six days the Lord made…”
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentThe word for wine in the NT is closer ro our phrase “grape beverage” and the context determines whether or not it is alcoholic.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentThat “have you stopped beating your wife yet” statement is crafted well but conveys error.
2Tim 3:16 “ALL scripture is given by inspiration from God” is the reason that we test all doctrine “sola scriptura”.
It is also the reason that the test of a genuine Bible prophet is infallible doctrine – because God himself cannot err.
If scripture were not from God – then the test above would be invalid.
Admittedly some of our “tradition not Bible” sister denominations might not go for this strict sola scriptura method – but we do.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentBobRyan(Quote)
View Comment@BobRyan:
You appear to be accepting the belief (one which absolves you from any responsibility) that what ever version of the Bible the SDA chrch endorses is by definition “inspired” and contradictions with the King James are resolved by the (Non SDA transltors) of later versions. Or should we discard all versions except the New Andrews study bible?
David Bee(Quote)
View Comment@BobRyan:
I am most saddened by all this controversy about dogma and words because I can’t find much indication in the gospels that Jesus cared much for doctrinal concerns. His “Kingdom of God” that was here and now didn’t seem to have a list of fundamental beliefs.
I would be much more comforted by the notion of sola scriptura if I had any defensible reason to know exactly which words in which manuscript by which authors were “inspired”. I should also need to know if the inspiration was verbal as in the decalogue of Exodus 20 or did “the spirit of the Lord came upon me” type of inspiration.
David Bee(Quote)
View Comment@BobRyan:
I am tempted to that a God who laughs must be capable of surprise. Surely he must have been a little surprised when so many of his efforts to redeem and restore Israel failed. Can his foreknowlege truly be adequate in the face of free will?
David Bee(Quote)
View Comment@BobRyan:
How do you suppose grape juice was protected from fermentation in Bible times? If it spent more than a couple of days in the wineskin it began to ferment, you can be sure.
David Bee(Quote)
View Comment@BobRyan:
If you have not yet done so, I reccommend reading Dawkins’ “The Ancestor’s Tale” He seems to make an actual effort to not be quite as polemical as in other writings and the book gives a pretty good idea of an evolutionst’s thinking at least up to 2005.
Attacks on creationists do not seem to be his primary objective in this book. An easy read, I reccommend it if you wish to feel conversant with modern Darwinism.
David Bee(Quote)
View Comment@BobRyan:
Happily the thousands of SDA’s who do not believe in a literal 6 day creation have not decided to resign from the church. They find the benefit of a church community to outway debates about which if any “words” of scripture were infallibly dictated by God.
David Bee(Quote)
View CommentI have located a copy of the 1893 Canadian edition of Great Controversy. EGW in her preface discusses “Ispiration” and how the words of Scripture are mainly the words of men led by Holy Spirit.
She also discusses how inspiration continues to act even today. Interestingly she is clearlhy willing to let the Catholic Bishops of the fourth century define the canon of scripture, under the Holy Spirit supervision, no doubt.
Here is the web address
Begins on the 4th un-numbered page, I think
David Bee(Quote)
View Comment@David Bee:
We addres for TGC
http://www.canadiana.org/view/34221/4
David Bee(Quote)
View Comment@David Bee: There is no need to comment eight times in a row. Why don’t you wait till Bob or someone else responds?
Shane Hilde(Quote)
View Comment@Shane Hilde:
Work duties pull me from keyboard from time to time. And sometims new thoughts arise.
David Bee(Quote)
View Comment@David Bee:
Shane, please let me know if I appear to be trying to bend anyone’s deeply held beliefs. The damage from the cognitive dissonance that would ensure were the church to try to alter any FB would definitely not be a Christ-like objective.
I comment only to represent those of us who cherish our church but believe in individual responsibility for dogmatic concerns. Perhaps if we could downplay dogma a little, we would have more time for trying to help and heal our communities.
David Bee(Quote)
View CommentI thank you for being so transparent about your confusion on that point.
I believe it is the logical point to which the TE position will eventually lead Christians that choose to go down that road.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentI can not understand how any thinking and knowledgeable person could believe that evolution is a science. It is a religion and this may be shown in five short sentences.
1. It is known that DNA contains coded information.
2. There is no known naturalistic mechanism for the origination of information.
3. The evolutionist must believe by faith that such a mechanism exists or has existed.
4. Now faith is a religious concept.
5. Therefore the belief in evolution is a religious belief.
But we do know one way by which information is originated. Information is originated by intelligent beings.
For David Bee: I own and have read Richard Dawkins’ book “The Blind Watchmaker” along with several similar books by other evolutionists. Their arguments are pathetic, they tell imaginary stores about how evolution works, and they avoid the the tough issues, such as irreducible complexity and that evolution occurs in the genotype, but survival occurs in the phenotype, etc.
Bob Orrick(Quote)
View CommentDavid Bee:
Am I to understand that you are an SDA minister and don’t believe scripture???? Do you really think that it is honest to be an SDA minister and undermine the church’s doctrines? I shudder to think of the poor people you have been in contact with.
I have been absolutely disgusted by your posts. You seem to be bent on teaching heresy and discrediting the Scriptures. Shame on you. You have betrayed the commission God gave you. You should go to Early Writings and read in the chapter on False Shepherds what the punishment is for those who lead others astray when they should know better. It isn’t pretty.
You will have much to account for come the judgment day.
Faith(Quote)
View Comment@Faith:
Happily I am not a minister. I completed the SDA ministerial course in a time (late 50’s) when we were taught that the days of Genesis 1 were long eons not literal days. I found that my real interest in ministry was the high I got from arousing an emotional response in the congregation. Realizing this was an invalid reason, I never became a church employee.
Since our church and EGW deny officially that the Bible we have is “verbally inspired”, I am puzzled by your seeming insistence on just that belief.
David Bee(Quote)
View Comment@Bob Orrick:
I find it even harder to believe that a loving God would create 400,000 years of ice rings in Antarctica to test our faith in a 6 day creation.
David Bee(Quote)
View Comment@BobRyan:
I guess we must find the will to trust that the Bishops in Alexadria 1600 years ago were not motivated by any political considerations and that a majority vote is adequate to ensure the authority of the books chosen for the canon. Unfortunate then that many of the books they ordered burned were discovered in the 20th century. At least we can now read some of the gospels they rejected.
I am just not able to let those ancient Bishops define truth for me.
David Bee(Quote)
View CommentBob Orrick, I agree with your syllogism.
One technical point that an ID theorist would explain, however, is that random processes can create information in the sense of creating more detail; this is called “Shannon” information. Random process can change this:
atgccgttaac
into this:
atgccgttaac atgccgttaac
and then into this:
atgcccttaac atgcgtttaac
That’s certainly more “information” than we started with, but not necessarily more meaning. (In fact, we know that genetic mutations are overwhelmingly more likely to ruin “meaning” or biological function than they are to enhance it.) Thus, what ID theorists contend is that random processes cannot create complex specified information.
The faith position of Darwinists is that random processes can generate an enormous amount of complex specified information, but that doesn’t really seem much more likely than producing “War and Peace” by having a monkey bang away on a computer keyboard.
David Read(Quote)
View Comment@ David Bee
Are you able to show by scientific testing or experiment that there are “400,000 years of ice rings…..”? Please explain how you would perform such a test or experiment.
Bob Orrick(Quote)
View Comment@ David Bee
Are you able to show by scientific testing or experiment that there are “400,000 years of ice rings…..”? Please explain how you would perform such a test or experiment.
Bob Orrick(Quote)
View CommentDavid Read
In my comment on DNA containing information, I had wished to restrict my point to the “origination” of information, not to the copying, addition to, deletion from, rearranging, or other manipulation of existing information.
Also I would submit the we have “information” only if it is possible to read (or decoded) it, otherwise it is noise or random “characters”. As you pointed out, having “meaning ” is the key.
Bob Orrick(Quote)
View Comment@Bob Orrick:
They counted them. Rather like tree rings
David Bee(Quote)
View Comment2Peter 1:20-21 “NO scripture is a matter of one person’s interpretation. Holy men of old moved by the Holy Spirit spoke From GOD”.
2Tim 3:16 “ALL scripture is given by inspiration from God”.
The NT saints of the first century A.D. were not “waiting 400 years for some bishops to tell them which books to read” — though many of our RCC friends like to tell such stories.
Generally does not fly that well with actual non-Catholics.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentGood points Bob Orrick – !
Atheist evolutionist Collin Patterson – British Museum of Natural History. Giving a talk at the American Museum of Natural hist –
Patterson said:
“…Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you’ve experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that’s true of me, and I think it’s true of a good many of you in here…
“… Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge , apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics…”
That some “SDAS” now want to claim to be “more in the dark” on this point than an atheist evolutionist – is beyond me…
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View Comment