The claim was made that the whole Bible is inspired …

Comment on The hinge of our faith by Bravus.

The claim was made that the whole Bible is inspired and should be followed. I listed a number of instances where that does not occur. No-one has addressed even one of those issues in any substantive way, yet any one of them individually is enough to logically falsify the claim that was made.

Can anyone systematically take those issues and clearly, Biblically show why the Bible is not saying what it clearly does say based on a literal reading in those instances? Or why, if the Bible says it, Christians should not or do not follow it? There have been several dismissals of the issue but no serious attempt at all to address it. Some of the issues come from the New Testament as well as the Old, and Adventists claim to accept the entire Bible anyway.

It is clearly simply not true that some people follow the entire Bible. They explain or argue away some parts of it. Now, they might be doing that based on very good, clear, appropriate hermeneutic principles and approaches. But my point is two-fold:

1. No-one at all in the whole world follows every single word of the Bible. Apart from anything else, show me someone who does and I’ll show you someone in jail for murder.
2. That being the case, they are clearly using some kind of principle or methodology to decide which pieces they will and will not follow.

Bravus Also Commented

The hinge of our faith

Is this an “anything but the subject of this thread” post on your part Bravus??

What is up with that?

It’s right on the topic of the thread. Do you or do you not believe that women must keep silent in church? That is what the Bible says. You claimed that my analysis of the texts, based on Shane’s explanation of why Christians no longer follow the letter of these texts, was an inappropriate approach and a distortion of and attack on Scripture.

If you do not accept that approach (exemplified by Shane as well as by me), then the only logical approach I can see is that you do indeed accept that women must be silent in church. It’s not an Old Testament statute or ceremonial law, it’s a pretty direct instruction from Paul in Scripture.

The key to this thread is our use and interpretation of Scripture in formulating our doctrines as Seventh-day Adventists. My question could not be more on-topic.

The hinge of our faith
So, Bob, your wife never speaks in church at all?

The hinge of our faith
I did want to acknowledge the thought and work you put into your responses, Shane. They are all eminently sensible responses, and I agree with the points you have made.

Take the issue of women not speaking out in church. As you noted, the underlying principle is good order and appropriate respect in church. That takes a different specific shape in a culture where men and women sit on opposite sides of the church (and, incidentally, where women were typically much less educated than their husbands and therefore more likely to need to ask them to explain what was said in church) than in a modern situation. And the focus of understanding those texts must therefore be, not on keeping women silent in church, but on what steps we should implement to ensure good order and appropriate respect in church. The underlying principle is the heart, and the expression of that principle will differ in different cultures.

Now, what is the underlying principle of the Creation story? That God is the Creator. Is it possible (I ask the question rather than make a statement) that a story of miraculous creation in 6 days was a cultural expression of this underlying principle that was appropriate at a particular place and time, but that in a modern scientific culture a different cultural expression can occur that still retains the central underlying principle?

Recent Comments by Bravus

Ted Wilson: “We will not flinch. We will not be deterred.”
Interesting that he says he is very proud of the GRI when they clearly said during the discussion that there is ‘no model’ of scientifically credible recent creationism that can be taught in our universities.

“Don’t go backwards to interpret Genesis as allegorical or symbolic”
My guess on the two-thirds thing is that what is actually being said is ‘more than two-thirds’. 99% is more than two-thirds… that specific number was chosen, not as the actual vote-count, but as a break-point: some motions need a simple majority, some need a two-thirds majority… and the vote well and truly delivered that, and more.

Just my interpretation.

GC Votes to Revise SDA Fundamental #6 on Creation
Excellent, excellent post above. J. Knight.

“Don’t go backwards to interpret Genesis as allegorical or symbolic”
(that should be ‘place in the church’)

“Don’t go backwards to interpret Genesis as allegorical or symbolic”
Bobbie Vedvick, the quote you asked about was a parody, penned by me.

Faith (and many others in this thread), the comments about those who will be driven out of SDAism by this push tend to assume that they are in disagreement with what has always been SDA belief. This is not the case: the very strong literalist recent creationist position is a relatively recent view. Note that what has happened at this GC is a vote for a *change* to Fundamental Belief 6. SDA beliefs are being *changed*, and those who won’t go along for the ride told they have no ce in the church.