I did want to acknowledge the thought and work you …

Comment on The hinge of our faith by Bravus.

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?

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
Thanks for that question, Shane. It gives me the opportunity to try to be clearer.

No, I’m definitely not saying what you have me saying above. I do believe the whole Bible is inspired and should be followed.

The point is that it should not be followed literalistically and simplistically. And the point here is that many who claim to follow a literal Genesis make large claims about how literally they follow the entire Bible… but those claims are not borne out in their practices, or indeed, even in their beliefs.

I’m making quite a narrow logical argument: everyone applies some interpretation or other to the Biblical text. Those who deny doing so need to stand up and show how their apparent actions actually concord with the Bible.

Ack, still not as clear as I’d like. Anyway, what I am *trying* to do is dispense with the false claim to absolute literalism.

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.