Ron, I wish Randal Wisbey and LaSierra were as honest …

Comment on The hinge of our faith by David Read.

Ron, I wish Randal Wisbey and LaSierra were as honest and up-front as you are about this issue. You say, “These professors really believe in Darwinism, and they should be allowed to teach what they believe.”

But LaSierra says, “We are teaching ABOUT Darwinism, not that Darwinism is the truth. We are just preparing our students for what they will hear in graduate school at a public university.” Only, that is not the truth. They are lying, and their lies are being exposed.

If LaSierra wants to defend the teaching of Darwinism as truth on the basis that, “that is what the professors believe, and they should be allowed to teach what they believe,” then LaSierra should say that. I think Shane, Sean, and most of the rest of us would be thrilled with that level of candor.

David Read Also Commented

The hinge of our faith
Geanna, a natural reading of the entire passage indicates that every square inch of land was covered to at least a depth of 15 cubits (or about 22 feet).

Again, as has been pointed out, this is very far from a uniquely Adventist reading, and it is certainly not necessary to invoke Ellen White to read the passage as meaning that the water eventually covered even the mountaintops to a depth of at least 22 feet (thought by some commentators to be the displacement or draft of the ark, hence the water must have been at least this deep to allow the ark to drift over mountaintops).

You might be interested to know that Whitcomb & Morris (not Adventists), in “The Genesis Flood” the seminal young earth creationist work of the 20th Century, address the depth of the flood on pages 1 and 2–that’s right, the first two pages of a nearly 500 page book. On page two, the quote commentator H.C. Leupold (not an Adventist) to the effect that:

“A measure of the waters is now made by comparison with the only available standard for such waters—the mountains. They are said to have been “covered.” Not a few merely but “all the high mountains under all the heavens.” One of these expressions alone would almost necessitate the impression that the author intends to convey the idea of the absolute universality of the Flood, e. g., “all the high mountains.” Yet since “all” is known to be used in a relative sense, the writer removes all possible ambiguity by adding the phrase “under all the heavens.” A double “all” (kol) cannot allow for so relative a sense. It almost constitutes a Hebrew superlative. So we believe that the text disposes of the question of the universality of the Flood.”
“By way of objection to this interpretation those who believe in a limited flood, which extended perhaps as far as mankind may have penetrated at that time, urge the fact that kol is used in a relative sense, as is clearly the case in passages such as Ge 41:57; Ex 9:25; 10:15; De 2:25; 1Ki 10:24. However, we still insist that this fact could overthrow a single kol, never a double kol, as our verse has it.”

You can find Leupold’s commentary online here:

I’m interested to know why you think it is necessary or helpful to a YEC model to have a non-universal flood. Why is this so important to you?

The hinge of our faith
Eddie, Shane & BobRyan:

And now for a shameless plug: My book, “Dinosaurs –An Adventist View” discusses in depth Archaeopteryx, as well as the alleged dinosaur to bird transition, as well as the alleged mammal-like reptile to mammal transition. In fact I have a whole chapter on just these issues. Fun for the whole family!!

The index entry for archaeopteryx states, “315-316, 328, 329, 333, 335, 497, plate 23.” And by the way, Eddie is right that Archeopteryx exhibits both avian and reptilian characteristics. It is pointless to argue otherwise.

Available at or at your local ABC. If it isn’t in stock at your local ABC, please ask why.

Recent Comments by David Read

The Reptile King
Poor Larry Geraty! He can’t understand why anyone would think him sympathetic to theistic evolution. Well, for starters, he wrote this for Spectrum last year:

“Christ tells us they will know us by our love, not by our commitment to a seven literal historical, consecutive, contiguous 24-hour day week of creation 6,000 years ago which is NOT in Genesis no matter how much the fundamentalist wing of the church would like to see it there.”

“Fundamental Belief No. 6 uses Biblical language to which we can all agree; once you start interpreting it according to anyone’s preference you begin to cut out members who have a different interpretation. I wholeheartedly affirm Scripture, but NOT the extra-Biblical interpretation of the Michigan Conference.”

So the traditional Adventist interpretation of Genesis is an “extra-Biblical interpretation” put forward by “the fundamentalist wing” of the SDA Church? What are people supposed to think about Larry Geraty’s views?

It is no mystery how LaSierra got in the condition it is in.

The Reptile King
Professor Kent says:

“I don’t do ‘orgins science.’ Not a single publication on the topic. I study contemporary biology. Plenty of publications.”

So, if you did science that related to origins, you would do it pursuant to the biblical paradigm, that is pursuant to the assumption that Genesis 1-11 is true history, correct?

The Reptile King
Well, Jeff, would it work better for you if we just closed the biology and religion departments? I’m open to that as a possible solution.

The Reptile King
Larry Geraty really did a job on LaSierra. Personally I think it is way gone, compromised beyond hope. The SDA Church should just cut its ties to LaSierra, and cut its losses.

As to the discussion on this thread, round up the usual suspects and their usual arguments.

La Sierra University Resignation Saga: Stranger-than-Fiction
It is a remarkably fair and unbiased article, and a pretty fair summary of what was said in the recorded conversation.