Dear Geanna:

The Geoscience Research Inswtitute must be held to the same standards of Biblical integrity as every other entity within the church. I am glad they will be featured at the General Conference, especially Timothy Standish who is very strong for classic Adventist creationism. My only hope is that all the speakers featured for this series will be strictly faithful to Adventist creationism as set forth in Scripture and the writings of the Spirit of Prophecy.

Perhaps this issue will, after all, come up in Atlanta on the floor. And if it does, let us pray the church will insert in Fundamental Belief No. 6 that the earth was created in six literal, consecutive, 24-hour days, followed immediately by a seventh day of identical duration on which God rested, thus sanctifying this day for all eternity.

Crystal clarity–nothing less–is imperative at this time of crisis in God’s church. Ambiguity and pluralism have compromised our faithfulness, sundered our unity, and cripplied our witness. The church needs a Josiah who will restore the true faith, smash the altars of apostasy, and elevate once and for all the gold standard of strict obedience to the written counsel of God.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson  Kevin Paulson(Quote)

I contacted the Michigan chapter of the Adventist organization, to try to get the General Conference Committee to invite the leading expert in the world on the book of Genesis, to give his 62 minute presentation on “the Observations of Moses”. It proves that current creationism does not understand the Genesis text, and that early Genesis is historically truth.

Herman Cummings  Herman Cummings(Quote)

The Seventh-day Adventist Church needs a dynamic apologetics ministry like Answers in Genesis and ICR. Our lay people turn to these ministries because we have nothing comparable in our own church. GRI never has really filled the bill, and likely never will.

We need an outstanding apologetics ministry. It must be an independent ministry, that make its living from donations. It cannot be attached to the church at any level, or to any church affiliated university, or to any church affiliated hospital, or it will become corrupted almost immediately. I’m convicted of this like I haven’t been convicted of anything in a long, long time.  David Read(Quote)

It looks like the GC is gearing up for something. Any guesses?  Ron Stone M.D.(Quote)

Well, Geanna, tell us what the GC is going to do about “evolution as fact.” Nothing? Something? Maybe something? Claim they did something? Or do you have any other possibilities?  Ron Stone M.D.(Quote)

Ron, it will be either nothing or something, I’m pretty sure. Are you suggesting otherwise?  Geanna Dane(Quote)

Dear Geanna: I must strongly disagree with your statement that “the vast majority of Adventists” don’t care about their church’s position on creation vs. evolution….

You’re correct Pastor Paulsen. The majority of bible-believing SDA’s are very concerned about this problem. How many in the Pacific Union Conference? How about a survey? Would be easy for conferences to do.  Ron Stone M.D.(Quote)

Dear Geanna:I must strongly disagree with your statement that “the vast majority of Adventists” don’t care about their church’s position on creation vs. evolution. I would truly like to know on what basis you believe our people are so apathetic about so basic a Biblical issue.God bless!Pastor Kevin Paulson  (Quote)

I am very sorry that you misunderstood me. I completely agree with your assessment about the church members interest in origins. What I wrote was actually this, and there is quite a difference:

…the Adventist church and Christianity at large face far bigger crises than the exact wording of FB#6. The vast majority of Adventists have no idea what FB#6 states, nor do they care. Most don’t even know the exact number of fundamental beliefs that we have.

  Geanna Dane(Quote)

@Mahabir Ramkhelawan:

Mahabir Ramkhelawan says:
June 15, 2010 There should be no fear, paranoia, apprehension, or any kind of “us” versus “them” mentality regarding an open, candid, honest evaluation of both the biblical and scientific data regarding the creation/evolution issue. Truth has NOTHING to fear! If we truly believe in the power of the transcendent Creator of the universe, then there will be NO place for any kind of vindictive feelings. We don’t have to “VINDICATE” truth. Truth always vindicates itself. God does NOT need anyone to go on any kind of “witch hunt” for Him.

Are you familiar with “the Living Temple” by Kellogg?

in Christ,

Bob  BobRyan(Quote)

Very exciting. Any idea if these will be recorded, posted online. That would be awesome!  Anthony(Quote)

Does anyone know when Tim Standish is supposed to speak? I am going to be in Atlanta for the first week and would be very sorry if I was there and yet missed it.  Shining(Quote)

Geanna,

I’m but one of many Loma Linda University scientists, so I speak only for myself and not for others. As you probably recognize, most of us Adventist scientists refuse to engage this fray for the reasons you, Professor Kent, pauluc, and others have pointed out. The dialogue at this site lacks professionalism and is filled with frequent misunderstanding and animosity.

As you are learning, there is little to nothing you can say to convince others here that their understanding of “evolution” (simply put, biological change) is weak or lacking. Moreover, the tolerance of many visitors here to the word and the many concepts associated with it will never change. Open-mindedness is as absent here as tolerance and basic levels of courtesy.

In spite of this dilemma, the Adventist church remains the home of many faithful believers who encounter what matters most–a close relationship with our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Within the church you will find heartwarming, encouraging, condescension-free fellowship if you look for it.  LLU Scientist(Quote)

A big meeting. It’s called a “World Session”. It’s something that happens every 5 years.  (Quote)

Although rarely something comes up at these meeting, SOP is mostly “rubber stamping” various proposals.  Ron Stone M.D.(Quote)

What evolutionists – whether be they naturalistic or theistic – do mean by “evolution” is this macro-evolution, and they use the example of “micro-evolution” or adaptation to prove the case for “macro-evolution,” which is, if we think about it, a classic case of bait-and-switch.  (Quote)

Justin, I don’t know your background but it is probably not very different from mine. I once believed as you believe- htat “evolution” refers only to really substantial change. But if you would sit down with real science papers (in botany, in physiology, in marine biology, in evolution, or whatever the topic) and actually read them, as I was compelled to do as a student, you would learn that scientists speak all the time of evolution in a microevolutionary sense. I know you don’t want to believe this and I know there is probably nothing I can say to convince you of this but that is the way it is.

Our church members are so frightened by the word “evolution” that they are terrified of learning anything about it as if learning what is really known would destroy their faith. But that’s not the way it has to be. I’m no expert on what evolution is all about but I have read enough and learned enough from my classes to understand it is very, very different than many of yuo people think. You’re simply not willing to learn. You’re hostile when soem of us try to point out legitimate issues. We’re quickly attacked. In spite of what I have read and in spite of the way I have been treated I am still a loyal and faithful Adventist. Some of us who have talked of the need to deal honestly with problems and have open minds have never sought to undermine “in six days God Created” and yet we still provoke hostile reactions such as the post by Richard Sherwin (I am sorry Richard, that we upset you so greatly).

I would like to say I have love and tolerance in my heart but doing so actually seeems to provoke you people to speak out against love and tolerance, and to promote beliefs and doctrines ahead of these. I think we should also have open and teachable minds, but again that gets scoffed at. Why can’t we have ALL of these things? I pray that we all could seek to find more balance in our views.  Geanna Dane(Quote)

Bob, how many ordinary run of the mill research publications do you need to see before acknowledging that evolutionists use the word “evolution” very, very often to mean change in the microevolutionary sense far, far, completely removed from any sense of “birds come from reptiles?”? How many? Give me a number please.

So tell me, am I an “evolutionist” if I beleive that one species of salamander might have evolved into more than 400 species? Or do you regard that as the type of change equivalent to your fingernails growing? (I can’t speak for you but it’s very different from my fingernails growing!) And since you understand so well what people really know or believe, please tell me if I actually believe that birds come from reptiles.  Geanna Dane(Quote)

@BobRyan:
Apropos of your favourite spiritual Gifts statement I would be interested to know if you take all of Ellen Whites writing as totally inerrant.

In particular her writings on amalgamations come to mind. Do you follows FD Nichols interpretation or do you think Tim Standish’s more recent interpretation of these passages is correct?  pauluc(Quote)

Justin, I don’t know your background but it is probably not very different from mine. I once believed as you believe- htat “evolution” refers only to really substantial change. But if you would sit down with real science papers (in botany, in physiology, in marine biology, in evolution, or whatever the topic) and actually read them, as I was compelled to do as a student, you would learn that scientists speak all the time of evolution in a microevolutionary sense. I know you don’t want to believe this and I know there is probably nothing I can say to convince you of this but that is the way it is.(Quote)

Geanna,

I do know evolutionists refer to small intra-specie “change” as evolution. However, this they do in express purpose of their attempt to postulate from it the validy of macro-evolution, which is non-existent and cannot be proven scientifically. That leap of the faith is what many of us do not buy.

If what naturalistic/theistic evolutionists all mean by “evolution” is just and only this type of small changes within the same speices, there exists no problem. However, even you would not admit that’s the case.

Do you honestly think what these LSU biology teachers have been teaching in their class is just the validity of this type of micro-evolution?  Justin(Quote)

I have very child-like, simplistic faith. I am not a scientist, but I do not believe I need to be to enter this discussion. I am curious if those on this site that are promoting “evolution,” in all its various connotations, believe Ellen White was a prophetess of God. If the answer is yes, then this debate is over. Ellen White is very clear in her writings on the role of evolution in our classrooms. I am talking about the day-age theory, macro-evolution, and any other form of evolution that disregards a literal, six day creation period. Did King David not say, the Lord spoke and it stood firm? Is God so small in our minds that he is unable to breathe out stars the size of Canis Majoris and larger and make the stand firm in one day? If your answer about Ellen White is no, then respectfully I must ask, “Why are you a Seventh-day Adventist?”

For me, I am not understanding the necessity of the debate. I believe Ellen White was a prophet of the Most High. This discussion is not about being open-minded. Liberals like to use this as a conversation stopper, as though historical Adventists are illiterate bumpkins. I may not have a degree in science, but I do hold three other degrees, and I have been taught to think, thanks to the educational system of this church. This conversation is about whether or not you are faithful to the complete, historical Adventist message. I call for all Adventists who believe in truth to not be tolerant, stand up, remain firm, and fight for God’s truth.  MCookenmaster(Quote)

@pauluc:

I have a high degree of value for things like 2Tim 3:16-17 “ALL scripture is given by inspiration from God and is profitable for doctrine”.

For things like 2Peter 1:20-21 “No prophecy of Scripture is a matter of ones own interpretation – holy men of old moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God”

Numbers 12:6 “IF there is a prophet among you I will make myself known to him in a vision I shall speak to him in a dream”.

1Cor 12 – the Gifts of the Spirit include that very thing – the gift of prophecy.

And being a Seventh-day Adventist – I happen to believe that Ellen White was given that gift.

When David asks Nathan for inspired advice on building the temple – Nathan pops off the answer “go for it” (paraphrasing).

Then God updates Nathan on the correct answer. Now lets fast forward to some of today’s neo-Adventists who claim that even in that case — when Nathan comes to David with God’s “update” — that anyone who wishes can just “edit whatever Nathan says” as it pleases them because Nathan just does not know how to tell David what God just told him.

In my opinion those people that choose to reject that case where Nathan actually is reporting what God has just said – are missing the entire doctrine on Spiritual Gifts as it relates to the gift of prophecy.

in Christ,

Bob  BobRyan(Quote)

Dear Brothers and Sisters:

When I wrote my last post I seem to have forgotten the rule on this forum that links to other Web sites are not allowed. So if anyone is interested in the Web site where my material on Ellen White, amalgamation, and other topics may be found, please contact me directly.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson

Links to other websites are allowed. I don’t know why you had a problem posting your link? – Sean Pitman

  Kevin Paulson(Quote)

You’re right on target again, Richard. The crux of secular humanistic philosophy is to be “open” to anything, so “everything” is equally valid and acceptable, at least to someone. The Bible is actually very “close minded!”  (Quote)

Dr. Stone and Richard,

Thank you. This was my point exactly! Have a blessed, joyous, and Christ-filled day. May Jesus and Him crucified be our theme!  MCookenmaster(Quote)

Bob, Geraty and Wisbey, as well as the Biol Profs we have been discussing certainly believe in “creation.” Just creation over eons of time, as the “intelligent” evolutionists keep telling us!  Ron Stone M.D(Quote)

I asked Bob Ryan how many papers it would take to convince him that evolutionary biologists use the term “evolution” all the time in a microevolutionary sense far removed from the bigger picture of “reptiles-to-birds”. Rather than an answer, all I got was abuse.

From Bob Ryan: Once in the door they put on the clown-costume and start talking about “well now we all agree that birds come from reptiles cause evolution is a fact”.

From Ron Stone: Well stated Bob, Geanna’s bait and switch tactic regarding the “definition” of evolution is well analyzed by ID advocates. And, Geanna simply follows the evolutionary dogma of confusion of terms when discussing Darwinism.

I fail to understand why the most faithful and devoted creationists resort to mockery and derision when it comes to treating fellow creationists who seek to be informed and honest. I’m accused of making things up and using the term “evolution” inappropriately, but consider the facts in my next post.  Professor Kent(Quote)

GRI was not designed to be like CRS and AiG, so don’t go blaming them for not being like them. They have been faithful to what they were set up to be. But do need something like CRS and Aig. Perhaps it needs to be grassroots.  Allen Roy(Quote)

That’s a good, thoughtful and useful set of distinctions that helps to take the discussion forward. The language partly obscures a really good point: when evolutionists use the language in this way, they’re not doing it to be devious and hoodwink people. They’re doing it because that’s how they see it – as all one unified process happening at a number of scales of size and time.

The challenge for creationists, of course, is to propose a compelling argument for why the commonsense notion that many small changes accumulating over a long period would not result in large changes.  Bravus(Quote)

I guess we’re all agreed now. Scientists use the word “evolution” on a day-to-day basis for all aspects of change, including microevolutionary change.  Geanna Dane(Quote)

@BobRyan: .

To make it easy to answer the questions. This is the statement from spiritual gifts

“But if there was one sin above another which called for the destruction of the race by the flood, it was the base crime of amalgamation of man and beast which defaced the image of God, and caused confusion everywhere.” -Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 3, p. 64, 1864.

“Every species of animal which God had created, were preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the endless varieties of species of animals and certain races of men.”- Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 3, p.75, 1864.

And the original defence of it by Uriah Smith endorsed by both Ellen White and James White.

“The visions teach, says the objector, that the negro race is not human. We deny it. They do not so teach. Mark the language: ” Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men.” This view was given for the purpose of illustrating the deep corruption and crime into which the race fell, even within a few years after the flood that signal manifestation of God’s wrath against human wickedness. There was amalgamation; and the effect is still visible in certain races of men.” Mark, those excepting the animals upon whom the effects of this work are visible, are called by the vision, “men.” Now we have ever supposed that anybody that was called a man, was considered a human being. The vision speaks of all these classes as races of men; yet in the face of this plain declaration, they foolishly assert that the visions teach that some men are not human beings! But does any one deny the general statement contained in the extract given above? They do not. If they did, they could easily be silenced by a reference to such cases as the wild Bushmen of Africa, some tribes of the Hottentots, and perhaps the Digger Indians of our own country, &c. Moreover, naturalists affirm that the line of demarkation between the human and animal races is lost in confusion. It is impossible, as they affirm, to tell just where the human ends and the animal begins. Can we suppose that this was so ordained of God in the beginning? Rather has not sin marred the boundaries of these two kingdoms? But, says the objector, Paul says that ” God hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth,” and then they add, ” Which shall we believe, Paul or E. G. White ?” You need not disbelieve E. G. White, in order to believe Paul; for there is no contradiction between them. Paul’s language will apply to all classes of men who have any of the original Adamic blood in their veins; and that there are any who have not this, is not taught by the visions, nor claimed by any one. But for this text to weigh anything in favor of the objector, he must take the ground that God made every particle of blood that exists, in any human being. Is this so? Then God made all the scrofulous, leprous, or syphilitic blood that courses in the worst transgressor’s veins! From any view which leads, to such a blasphemous conclusion, we prefer to be excused.

But what has the ancient sin of amalgamation to do with any race or people at the present time? Are they in any way responsible, or to be held accountable for it ? Not at all. Has any one a right to try to use it to their prejudice? By no means. The fact is mentioned simply to show how soon men relapsed into wickedness, and to what a degree. But we are to take all races and peoples as we find them. And those who manifest sufficient powers of mind to show that they are moral and accountable beings, are of course to be esteemed as objects of regard and philanthropic effort. We are bound to labor, so far as in our power, for the improvement of their mental, moral and physical condition. Whatever race of men we may take, Bushmen, Hottentots, Patagonians, or any class of people, however low they may apparently be in the scale of humanity, their mental capabilities are in every instance the basis on which we are to work, and by which we determine whether they are subjects of moral government or not. Then what about all this ado over the charge, which is itself false, that the visions teach that the negro is not a human being? What does it amount to? It is simply an effort to create prejudice in the minds of the people, unworthy any one who makes any pretensions to being a Christian, or even a gentleman.”-Uriah Smith, THE VISIONS OF MRS. E. G. WHITE, A MANIFESTATION Of SPIRITUAL GIFTS ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES, pp.102-105, 1868.

I particularly like the statement about where man starts and animal ends. Is this not relevant to the argument that has been carried on on this thread about the nature of species?  pauluc(Quote)

Dear Pauluc:

There is no written evidence that I have seen which indicates Ellen White’s endorsement of this statement by Uriah Smith regarding amalgamation and the “certain races of men” Ellen White speaks of. Ellen White gives no specifics here, because it wouldn’t accomplish anything to do so.

Again I urge you and anyone else in this discussion to contact me privately for Web information regarding the material I have written in defense of Ellen White and in opposition to her critics. I tried putting the Web site address on this site a second time, but was unable to. Just contact me privately, if you are interested, and I will send you the information.

Regarding your question to Bob Ryan about whether Ellen White’s writings are as inerrant as the Bible, I would urge you to consider the reality that God does not have junior prophets. The Bible makes no distinction between prophets whose writings were later canonized and those which were not. Deborah, Nathan, Elijah, and John the Baptist were every bit as authoritative as Moses, Isaiah, and the apostle Paul. The Bible offers no contrary evidence.

God bless1

Pastor Kevin Paulson  Kevin Paulson(Quote)

@Kevin Paulson:

You response was a little cryptic but I am interpreting you as saying that all prophets are equally inspired and that there is no distinction between canonical and non-canonical inspired writers such as Ellen white.

You did not actually commit on the issue of inerrancy of the bible or EG White. Biblical inerrancy is the position taken by the fundamentalist movement in the early part of last century and posits that the bible in its original autographs is without error. I am assuming that this is the position that most on this website will assume and I suspect you would also fall into that group and extend this inerrancy to the writings of Ellen White.

I agree with you on the issue of Ellen White and the bible writers in that there is no difference between the inspiration but I suspect I differ from you in that I take the Adventist position that the writers of the bible and Ellen White were all inspired by the spirit of God to write but in doing so they wrote in their own language and context and were not compelled to generate an inerrant text.

In the case of the amalgamation statements they seem to have been dropped from Patriachs and Prophets a surprising eventuality if indeed this was the sin above all others that lead to the destruction of the earth in the flood as she wrote in SG. Rules of logic would suggest that she was either in error in including it in SG or was in error in omitting such an important issue from P&P.

I do not have any problem with these statements as I suspect she like her contemporaries realized over the years that the whole concept was racist and incorrect and she simply decided to let sleeping dogs lie. Sound advice and a good paradigm for the protagonists at this site who are bent on the destruction of scientists at Adventist educational institutions.  pauluc(Quote)

@BobRyan:

Geanna Dane says:
June 17, 2010 Bob, how many ordinary run of the mill research publications do you need to see before acknowledging that evolutionists use the word “evolution” very, very often to mean change in the microevolutionary sense far, far, completely removed from any sense of “birds come from reptiles?”? How many? Give me a number please.

Bob replies

They try the shell game of “evolution is change” so that they can get the idea inserted and accepted. AFter all “change happens”.

Once in the door they put on the clown-costume and start talking about “well now we all agree that birds come from reptiles cause evolution is a fact”.

It is wayyy too late in this dialogue to start pretending that the LSU evolutionists actually believe in a literal 7 day creation week, deny that birds come from reptiles and in fact like to call “change in fingernail length” — evolution, fully rejecting the birds-come-from-reptiles storybook.

Surely we can agree to that set of basic points.

The salient point being that while the Bible supports varation within a static genome (in terms of coding genes inside the genome itself) and so we have no problems with the “existence” of chihuahua’s and Irish Wolf hounds, the key point of difference in evolution vs creation is the by-faith-alone argument of evolutionism of the form “birds come from reptiles” or “whales come from Elephants” or horses come from the tree dwelling hyrax or .. .”take your pick”.

Geanna said:

I guess we’re all agreed now. Scientists use the word “evolution” on a day-to-day basis for all aspects of change, including microevolutionary change.  (Quote)

Indeed – shell game “noted”.

in Christ,

Bob  BobRyan(Quote)

Dear Pauluc:

My position on the inerrancy of Scripture and the writings of Ellen White is the same as Ellen White’s herself. I believe in conceptual and not verbal inspiration. “The writers of the Bible were God’s penmen, not His pen” (1SM 19). This is not the same as the verbal inspiration taught by popular Christian fundamentalism.

Peripheral errors, like the Biblical discrepancy over how many of Jacob’s family moved to Egypt (Gen. 46:27; Acts 7:14) or the difference in Ellen White’s account of which bell tolled to signal the start of the St. Bartholomew Massacre (a difference reflected in successive editions of The Great Controversy), are acknowledged by all informed conservative Adventists. If, however, one is prepared to discount as errant such statements as the ones about short-age creationism, the universality of the Flood, even the amalgamation one you seem to hold as erroneous, then we are questioning God’s revelation.

I flatly reject any notion that Ellen White’s amalgamation statements were racist, or that there is anything sinister or below-board in the fact that these statements do not occur in Patriarchs and Prophets. Perhaps Ellen White, working under divine inspiration, recognized that certain statements–if repeated too often–would generate distracting controversy. This hardly means she was retracting them or admitting error. The bottom line is that at no point does she ever identify any race of humanity as less than human, or that such a race of humans should be treated as second class. Regardless of the history of the various races of humanity, concerning which this is the ONLY statement in her writings, Ellen White’s record on race relations is a sterling one–stellar and principled far in advance of the conservative evangelicals who have decried hers and her church’s theology as “legalistic.”

I am not saying Adventists have a perfect track record on racial issues. Most assuredly we do not. But our record (which includes support for abolition, a very radical stance in its day) is far supeerior to that of the vast majority of conservative Protestants who have routinely denounced the Seventh-day Adventist faith.

One final thought on the amalgamation issue. The idea that crossing animals with humans is somehow scientifically preposterous has been debunked in recent years by such scholars as Jeremy Rifkin, in his book The Biotech Century, buttressed by a number of reports in the mainstream media on various advances in cloning technology. This is not science fiction, nor is it in any way laughable. If people today can make such strides in tampering with the basics of biology, what could be said of those of vastly greater intelligence, but a scant few centuries from the tree of life? It was our Lord, after all, who said that the days of Noah would be comparable to those just prior to His return (Luke 17:26).

Those dismissing and scoffing at various Ellen White statements, on this and many other topics, would do well to hold their laughter. The last laugh may well be on them.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson  Kevin Paulson(Quote)

I would love to respond the questions raised by Bob. If you look at Ellen White’s statement on amalgamation, she never said that the Africans came into existence as the result of amalgamation of humans with animals. She simply stated that amalgamation post-flood was responsible for the presence of “certain races of men.” Why is it that people automatically assume that she was referring to Africans and people of African descent in that statement? She was not a racist but, in my opinion, those who leap to this assumption (that she was referring specifically to Blacks) may have their own issues in accepting racial equality.

To question the full humanity of people of African descent was useful back in the days when White Christians were looking for ways to excuse themselves for participating in the business of the slave trade. But fortunately we are now living in an age were “knowledge has increased” so to speak. For instance, I would refer anyone interested to check out http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/291798 where on May 10, 2010 a study is reported that reviews how an international team of scientists have successfully sequenced the neanderthal genome and the evidence shows that humans in Europe and Asia carry Neanderthal genes while African people are “100 percent human.” And I think it safe to say that genetic scientists agree that Africans are the most ethnically pure group and other races are more genetically diverse than the Africans from whom they seem to have come.

I believe that Ellen White’s statements about amalgamation POST-FLOOD were meant to teach us how different racial or ethnic groups came into existence. My take on what she says is that people who tended to look more like each other married and produced offspring and so genetic material was strengthened in different ways in these different parent groups, thus giving rise to the hugely varied skin colors, eye colors, hair textures and body morphologies that we see today (after all there were only 8 people on the ark, right?). Really, DNA has proven that there really are no true, distinct racial variations between populations. Ethnic distinctions, of course, are more superficial and variable (please refer to the race section of Wikipedia for more info if you like).

It is very true that scientists can now create organisms that are a mixture of different species (they are called chimera) and the techniques used to create them are largely high tech. If we interpret Mrs. White’s statement of amalgamation PRE-FLOOD to mean the intermingling of human genes with animal genes then yes, I can see how that would be possible as she describes the antedeluvians as being very advanced scientifically. And perhaps this intermingling explains some of the fossils that have been found that seem to somewhat but not fully human. But remember she also states that only those species created by God entered into the ark. Only now has mankind regained enough scientific knowledge to create chimeras- it simply was not doable in the laboratory until the most recent decades.

So please, can we put to rest this amazingly incorrect, unfounded idea that Ellen White thought Africans were the descendants of some type of animal/human combination??

Even Uriah Smith’s comments do not include any statement that Africans or “negros” were the result of amalgamation. Now, Smith is in no way a prophet, so we can ignore his erroneous suggestions about how certain ethnic groups came into existence.

Speaking as a physician-scientist and as an Ellen G. White-believing, six-day-creation-accepting African American Seventh-day Adventist, let’s move on!  cathy(Quote)

@Kevin Paulson:

My position on the inerrancy of Scripture and the writings of Ellen White is the same as Ellen White’s herself. I believe in conceptual and not verbal inspiration. “The writers of the Bible were God’s penmen, not His pen” (1SM 19). This is not the same as the verbal inspiration taught by popular Christian fundamentalism.

Indeed I agree entirely and consistent with that view would see Genesis 1 and 2 as “conceptually inspiration” and subject to interpretation.

I do not see how you can believe the above and yet aggressively condemn those creationists with expertise in biology who are trying to reconcile the 2 accounts of origins in genesis with the body of knowledge that is modern science.  pauluc(Quote)

@BobRyan:

“So if you think that sometimes God lies when he talks to Ellen White – but he always tells the truth when speaking to a Bible author – then my conclusion is that you are mistaken.

If you think that sometimes when Ellen White says “God told me…” and then gives a statement – that she is really lying — and other times she is correct, then you think she is a false prophet – and are in fact asking me if I agree with your position. in that case I do not agree with you.”

I truly cannot understand why you must insist that any communication of error must have some sinister motive or be a lie. Your words like Kevin Paulson are in constrast to your evident understanding of the process of communication. You seem to talk of conceptual inspiration but you really seem to be communicating verbal inspiration and biblical inerrancy.

I suggest that the communication of God with man is similar to human communication in that we as humans bring to this conversation certain suppositions and biases. It is never a communication with 100% fidelity. How do you think the words of God got onto paper through her pen? She was shown a vision or a dream. How do you understand a dream? Surely there is some level of interpretation even in the understanding of the images or dialogue. If she was in error it was not because God lied to her but because she did not understand the significance or interpret it correctly. How can you read Daniel and not appreciate that dreams and visions are anything but cryptic messages from God. Why do we allow that she was human and yet pretend that she were infallable and inerrant and that to suggest otherwise is to call her or God a liar.

I believe in the power of parables and allegory and have a nuanced view of truth that allows for factual error or errors in interpretation that does not negate the truth.  pauluc(Quote)

@cathy:

I agree entirely. I believe that Ellen White was a very sensible Godly woman who while never actively contradicting Uriah Smith racist statements of which she could not possibly have been unaware nonetheless came to appreciate that her views on amalgamation were incorrect just as her ideas on the shut door had been incorrect and simply no longer spoke or wrote of them.

The point in rehashing all this is to appreciate that Adventism is whether we like it or not a progressive religion. We have been wrong in the past and we will likely be wrong in the future but we are striving to understand and grow in a knowledge of God. From early in our history we have had a concept of “present truth” and “new light”. We as a church community grew out of a great error. The great disappointment. We have evolved in our understanding of Gods message and our response to it. We have accepted we have no creed but the bible precisely because we believe we must be the people to bring the message of Grace to a modern changing world and must every rely on the God and not our institutional interpretation.

What we have now however is people within the church of a fundamentalist bent who would say we have all the pillars lined up. We cannot move even one. We have the truth, We have never ever been in error. We have the correct understanding of scripture and there can be no other. There is nothing new to learn or to change. To assume this position is to deny our history as a movement and as a denomination. It is to deny our vitality and the ever present spirit of God that is to lead into all truth.  pauluc(Quote)

@pauluc:

Pauluc: Just last year I published a 600 page book, entitled “Dinosaurs–An Adventist View” available for sale at Amazon.com and at your local ABC, that is largely an exploration of the amalgamation statements. I would encourage you to pick up a copy and read it thoroughly with an open mind.

Ellen White clearly taught that there were two classes of animals in existence at the Flood: (1) those that God created, and (2) those that God did not create, that were the result of amalgamation, amalgamation being the main reason God was forced to bring the Flood. Those anaimals that God created were preserved in the Ark, whereas the amalgamated creatures were destroyed in the Flood.

The fossil record confirms Ellen White in detail: there are many creatures that apparently existed before the Flood which do not now exist and never existed at any time following the Flood. These include the dinosaurs, the extinct marine reptiles, the extinct flying reptiles and the mammal-like reptiles. Moreover, these animals partake of a very obviously “amalgamated” character; mammal-like reptiles being combinations of mammals and reptiles and dinosaurs being combinations of several classes, most prominently birds and reptiles. Far from being evidence of Ellen White’s fallibility, the amalgamation statements are a stunning confirmation of her prophetic inspiration.

It is important to understand that “amalgamation” is not a technical term, nor is it a term unique to the sin of the antediluvians. Ellen White speaks of Satan’s methods of amalgamation being what introduced tares and noxious weeds into nature. Likewise, regarding post-Flood amalgamation, Ellen White didn’t say that anyone did it, rather “there has been” amalgamation since the Flood. The only thing in common these three usages have is that they all apparently involve genetic manipulation or change. Please keep in mind that she was writing before DNA was discovered and almost a century before it was determined that DNA carries the genetic information, and that plants and animals can be designed and engineered by manipulation of their DNA.

As Kevin Paulson and Cathy have indicated above, Ellen White never endorsed Uriah Smith’s view that living races were the result of a combination of humans and animals. But I believe it was precisely because the amalgamation statements were being used to support crackpot racist theories that Ellen White avoided using the term “amalgamation” in Patriarchs and Prophets. I do not think she abandoned the concept revealed to her, however, because she uses language in Great Controversy that is almost identical to that used in Spiritual Gifts. In Spiritual Gifts she wrote:

“But if there was one sin above another which called for the destruction of the race by the flood, it was the base crime of amalgamation of man and beast which defaced the image of God, and caused confusion everywhere.”

In GC, p. 664, she wrote that the antediluvians “evil inventions, defiling the earth and defacing the image of God, caused Him to blot them from the face of His creation.”

She clearly did not abandon the concept that the antediluvians brought the Flood on themselves by an evil invention that defaced the image of God.  David Read(Quote)

I just wanted to add to my message above that while I did provide science journal references, I view that material from a Creationist point of view and so in no way meant to endorse any unproven, evolution-based theories that might be referred to in the references. thanks.  cathy(Quote)

@David Read:

Faith and science conference 2009, Avondale college, Australia. 0900 Sunday 8th February.

“When prophets say strange things: Ellen White and the “Amalgamation” statements”.

I do not have the transcript of the talk but you may be able to get it from Tim. I certainly am open to correction but as I recall he canvassed a number of possibilities including chimerism, interracial marriage and pollution theories. He concluded that we may never know what she really meant but it was clear from his talk that he did accept that at the time she was likely aware of the statements of Uriah Smith, and the contemporary use of the term. She never wrote anything in her defence or correcting his view which I would certainly see as racist when judged from our contemporary views. I do not think she was racist but I do certainly believe she was a product of her times and we are free to make a judgement just as we make a judgement on the concept of merciful genocide.  pauluc(Quote)

@Victor Marshall: @Victor Marshall:

I am not sure you have reviewed the comments on this website recently else you may not be so convinced that there is universal support for conceptual inspiration in practice.

Take from example one of the more prolific writers here Sean Pitman who writes;

“It is very clear from the writings of Mrs. White that she claimed to have been given much more than mere conceptual inspiration by God. She claims to have been shown, very directly in vision, true historical and future events as they really did or will occur. She claims to have been shown the literal creation week as it occurred over 7 literal days – the same as the days we now experience. It is very hard to get that wrong. Either she was lying about her visions or God was lying to her by giving her such clear yet false visions of reality. She also claims to have seen, in vision, Adam and Eve and their Fall and expulsion from the Garden of Eden. She claims to have been shown the Noachian Flood and the resulting world-wide devastation… etc. ”

Couple this with his expressed view that anyone who does not believe in a scenario of 7 day 24 hours, 6000 years ago is dishonest and should be expelled from educational insitutions and from church employ if not from membership and I think any reasonable person would have to conclude that literalism if not an acceptance of inerrancy of the bible and the writings of Ellen White is well entrenched on this site.

Many the writers on this site are good honest people struggling valiantly to avoid change or standing back and taking an honest appraisal of the situation. They remind me of Walter Rea, who wrote of how astonished he was with what he found in the writings of Ellen White when he embarked on some research. What did he really expect? Inerrancy? He may have followed the party line of conceptual inspiration but in reality he expected inerrancy and was completely devastated, and accused all and sundry including EG White herself of dishonesty and deception, when he was no longer convinced it was there.  pauluc(Quote)

BobRyan said:
“So if you think that sometimes God lies when he talks to Ellen White – but he always tells the truth when speaking to a Bible author – then my conclusion is that you are mistaken.

If you think that sometimes when Ellen White says “God told me…” and then gives a statement – that she is really lying — and other times she is correct, then you think she is a false prophet – and are in fact asking me if I agree with your position. in that case I do not agree with you.”

@pauluc:

I truly cannot understand why you must insist that any communication of error must have some sinister motive or be a lie. Your words like Kevin Paulson are in constrast to your evident understanding of the process of communication. You seem to talk of conceptual inspiration but you really seem to be communicating verbal inspiration and biblical inerrancy.

I suggest that the communication of God with man is similar to human communication in that we as humans bring to this conversation certain suppositions and biases. It is never a communication with 100% fidelity.

In 2Peter 1:20-21 God argues that they “speak from God” when the Holy Spirit speaks to them – and they speak to us.

The Bible calls the result “the Word of God”.

Ellen White also calls it “the Word of God”.

In your model above it is merely the word of fallible men.

The “reason” that a TEST of a prophet is doctrinal correctness – is that by the very nature of the communication being the “Word of God” – God cannot err. Thus if there is doctrinal error or even failed prediction in the message – then the Bible says they are a false prophet.

The bible does not say “well that is just the nature of that form of communication after all people are flawed you know”.

You seem to be going down a road that is not supported either in the Bible or in the writings of Ellen White.

Pauluc said -
How do you think the words of God got onto paper through her pen? She was shown a vision or a dream. How do you understand a dream? Surely there is some level of interpretation even in the understanding of the images or dialogue.

Ellen White stated that she was just as dependant on the Holy Spirit for writing the vision as in receiving it to start with. God is “big enough” to insure that his message is accurately transmitted (as it turns out).

So now let us take the 3SG 90-91 so often quoted here – show us how you propose that “prophecy works” such that it is totally unreliable in what it says.

This I have to see.

Pauluc said
If she was in error it was not because God lied to her but because she did not understand the significance or interpret it correctly. How can you read Daniel and not appreciate that dreams and visions are anything but cryptic messages from God.

At no point in Daniel – does Daniel “lie” or even becoming “untrusted” in what he says. He simply and accurately tells what he was shown EVEN in cases where he admits he does not understand the full meaning. EVEN in that extreme case – the communication is STILL accurately and reliably transmitted.

for example in Dan 9 Daniel is given an explanation of Daniel 8 – but he does not say then “hey forget what I said I was shown in Daniel 8 — turns out that was all wrong”.

Pauluc said

Why do we allow that she was human and yet pretend that she were infallable and inerrant and that to suggest otherwise is to call her or God a liar.

Your statement makes no sense – 3SG 90-91 is not about Ellen White eating lunch and passing on a few comments that happen to occur to her. You are grossly equivocating to get out of the tight spot that evolutionism has with Ellen White’s visions.

Pauluc said
I believe in the power of parables and allegory

Same here – but I know the difference between parables, allegory and a simple plain statement of fact as we see in Ex 20:8-11 and 3SG 90-91.

Notice that in your efforts to show something more – you avoid the text like it was the plague.

That should tell you something about the line of argument you are following.

in Christ,

Bob  BobRyan(Quote)

Dear Pauluc:

You complain that those of us defending Ellen White’s prophetic authority are giving “no alternative,” that either Ellen White was “inerrant or she is a liar.”

Guess what? That is precisely the dilemma Ellen White herself sets up for those confronting the claims of her writings. Consider the following:

“Many times in my experience I have been called upon to meet the attitude of a certain class, who acknowledged that the testimonies were from God, but took the position that this matter and that matter were Sister White’s opinion and judgment. This suits those who do not love reproof and correction, and who, if their ideas are crossed, have occasion to explain the difference between the human and the divine.
“If the preconceived opinions or particular ideas of some are crossed in being reproved by testimonies, they have a burden at once to make plain their position to discriminate between the testimonies, defining what is Sister White’s human judgment, and what is the word of the Lord. Everything that sustains their cherished ideas is divine, and the testimonies to correct their errors are human—Sister White’s opinion. They make of none effect the counsel of God by their tradition” (3SM 69).

“God is either teaching His people, reproving their wrongs, and strengthening their faith, or He is not. This work is of God, or it is not. God does nothing in partnership with Satan. My work… bears the stamp of God, or the stamp of the enemy. There is no half-way work in the matter. The Testimonies are of the Spirit of God, or of the devil” (5T 671).

“Yet now when I send you a testimony of warning and reproof, many of you declare it to be merely the opinion of Sister White. You have thereby insulted the Spirit of God” (5T 64).

“In these letters which I write, in the testimonies I bear, I am presenting to you that which the Lord has presented to me. I do not write one article in the paper expressing merely my own ideas. They are what God has opened before me in vision—the precious rays of light shining from the throne” (5T 67).

“You have talked over matters as you viewed them, that the communications from Sister White are not all from the Lord, but a portion is her own mind, her own judgment, which is no better than anybody else’s judgment and ideas. This is one of Satan’s hooks to hang your doubts upon to deceive your soul and the souls of others who will dare to draw the line in this matter and say, This portion which pleases me is from God, but that portion which points out and condemns my course of conduct is from Sister White alone, and bears not the holy signet. You have in this way virtually rejected the whole of the messages, which God in His tender, pitying love has sent to you to save you from moral ruin” (3SM 68-69).

“In the testimonies sent to Battle Creek, I have given you the light God has given to me. In no case have I given my own judgment or opinion. I have enough to write of what has been shown me, without falling back on my own opinions” (3SM 70).

“I have my work to do, to meet the misconceptions of those who suppose themselves able to say what is testimony from God and what is human production. If those who have done this work continue in this course, satanic agencies will choose for them.
“Those who have helped souls to feel at liberty to specify what is of God in the Testimonies and what are the uninspired words of Sister White, will find that they were helping the devil in his work of deception” (3SM 70).

“What reserve power has the Lord with which to reach those who have cast aside His warnings and reproofs, and have accredited the testimonies of the Spirit of God to no higher source than human wisdom? In the judgment, what can you do who have done this, offer as an excuse for turning from the evidences He has given you that God was in the work?” (3SM 70).

In other words, my brother, the “all or nothing” dilemma which you seek to disdain is not the invention of some narrow-minded conservative Adventist, supposedly giving Ellen White’s writings more authority than she herself gave them. This is one of the great myths perpetrated by so-called “progressive” Adventists. The above statements are emphatically clear that Ellen White saw her writings as error-free as regards Biblical, doctrinal, and spiritual issues. It is she herself who says, as one of the above statements makes clear: “The Testimonies are of the Spirit of God or of the devil” (5T 671).

There is no middle ground possible here. It is like what Josh McDowell says of Jesus. When confronting His claims He must be seen either as “Lord, liar, or lunatic.” With regard to Ellen White’s claims for her writings, they must be seen–on the basis of her own assertions–either as wholly from God or wholly from Satan.

Perhaps a word should be said about Walter Rea’s work, since you have brought it up. Anyone who has read The White Lie, as I have, is well aware that this dear man’s work is suffused with bitterness not only at Ellen White and the Seventh-day Adventist Church, but at Christianity as well. God and His dealings with His ancient people, along with heaven itself, are scoffed at in his book. I believe we are quite wide of the mark to assume that belief in the inerrancy of inspired writings was Rea’s problem, and that honest inquiry presumably forced him to reassess his stand. Even a quick peruse of his book is sufficient to persuade the objective reader that a deep-seated hatred of most (if not all) things spiritual lay at the foundation of his attack on Ellen White’s credibility.

God bless!

Pastor Kevin Paulson  Kevin Paulson(Quote)

@Kevin Paulson:

At least be honest with the character of Walter Rea. You impune him with all manner of perceived evils, I simply believe he was an honest man that had unrealistic expectation and had an awakening that was catastrophic for his faith. In his expectation he differs little from several that have expressed their views on this site. To believe in the inerrancy of Ellen White and to see her either as a liar or infallible is setting ones self up for a similar fall.

See how he writes autobiographically in his prologue. Is this the word of a man with deep seated hatred of God?

“Almost from the first time I heard of her, early in my teens, I became a devotee of Ellen G. White and her writings. I learned to type by copying from her book Messages to Young People. In high school and college, I often went from room to room in the dormitory, gathering Ellen White quotations from others to use in my preparations for becoming a minister in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. It was during those days that I conceived the idea of preparing an Adventist commentary by compiling from the writings of Ellen White all the statements pertaining to each book of the Bible, each doctrine, and each Bible character.

Early in my ministerial life, which began in central California in the latter 1940s, I compiled two volumes of Old and New Testament Bible biographies, incorporating with each entry the pertinent quotations found in Ellen White’s works. …and a third volume on Daniel and the Revelation, all based on Ellen White’s works, and soon these books were sold in most Adventist Book and Bible houses and used in many Adventist schools and colleges in North America.”  pauluc(Quote)

Dear Pauluc: I am fascinated that you ignore all the Ellen White statements I have cited, which clearly indicate Ellen White’s own awareness of her prophetic role and its meaning.We can argue at length as to the reason Walter Rea ended up as he did.But the statements I quoted from Ellen White are absolutely clear as to the “all or nothing” nature of her authority.The fact that you have not responded to these statements gives evidence to all in this discussion that you cannot answer this plain evidence.God bless!Pastor Kevin Paulson  

Paulac admits he believes the Bible contains “errors.” I guess he’s going to tell us where and how he can “correct” these errors? Well, Paulac?!  Ron Stone M.D.(Quote)

U.S. Court Rejects Creationist School’s Lawsuit Over Bid to Offer Master’s Degree

A federal judge has tossed out the Institute for Creation Research Graduate School’s lawsuit against the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board over the board’s decision, in 2008, to reject the institute’s bid to offer a master’s degree in science education. In a ruling issued last Friday, Judge Sam Sparks of the U.S. District Court in Austin, Tex., dismissed the institute’s lawsuit summarily, writing that it “has not put forth evidence sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact with respect to any claim it brings.” According to the institute’s Web site, its mission is to equip “believers with evidence of the Bible’s accuracy and authority through scientific research, educational programs, and media presentations, all conducted within a thoroughly biblical framework.”  H. Lowry(Quote)

@Geanna Dane:

Bob, how many ordinary run of the mill research publications do you need to see before acknowledging that evolutionists use the word “evolution” very, very often to mean change in the microevolutionary sense far, far, completely removed from any sense of “birds come from reptiles?”? How many? Give me a number please.So tell me, am I an “evolutionist” if I beleive that one species of salamander might have evolved into more than 400 species? Or do you regard that as the type of change equivalent to your fingernails growing? (I can’t speak for you but it’s very different from my fingernails growing!) And since you understand so well what people really know or believe, please tell me if I actually believe that birds come from reptiles.  

As others have pointed out, you need to be careful with your use of the word Evolution. If you must use it, at least specify what you mean. For example, regarding “one species of salamander might have evolved into more than 400 species”, the diversification of a species by process of natural selection is not something any Creationist disagrees with! But I do have a problem with stretching that to another “kind” of animal entirely. Granted, the word “kind” is not well defined since only Creationists seem to recognize such a boundary (and they aren’t the ones in power in the world of science).

Regarding your example of bacteria “evolving” resistance, the process of natural selection once again eliminated the strains that did not have resistance to a given anti-bacterial agent. Then, the other strains had less competition and were able to grow without constraint, and take over the host. That is no reason to use it as an example of how life came about on this planet.

In both of these examples, there was “no new information” imparted by the elimination of weaker strains. In the cases of mutation, there is debate over whether a mutation constitutes new information, but with a deeper look at what is actually occurring at the DNA level, it becomes clear that you still have no new information.

In summary: If you want to use the word “evolution” expect to find “resistance” because the immunity of the community has been increased to misuse of the word

God bless,
Warren  Warren(Quote)

Great point Professor Kent, I can also say that the evolution of my Bible and theological studies are progressing quite well, no thanks to Charles Darwin!  Steve Billiter(Quote)

Kevin Paulson and Graeme Bradford,

http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/rar/pau-phumanity.php  Steve Billiter(Quote)

I have found this blog interesting, appalling, in grace, disgraceful, argumentative, clear insight, ambiguous, focus, and all over the board…

Can someone remind me of the purpose of this blog?
A Was it meant to discuss the fact or fiction of “evolution,” which ever definition is meant?
B Is it to debate the processes of Divine communication?
C Is it meant to prove just how stalwart is the defender of TRUTH?
D Is it meant to generate a concensus of opinion (possibly apart from prayer)?
E Is it to determine just how “the problem” (which I consider HUGE)should be dealt with?

I believe in absolute truths. I also believe in different facets of truth. I believe that individuals all approach “the ELEPHANT” blindly–blind to the “other side of the elephant.” No two descriptions will be totally the same.

God CREATED us with different understandings, senses… It is divine to respect our differences. That is respect for PEOPLE.

God created TRUTH. Micah 6:8 suggests that God would also have us walk HUMBLY–for none of us has a corner on truth, or the full viewpoint. Only GOD has a corner on TRUTH. It is our aim to all get in GOD’S CORNER–in other words, find and see TRUTH AS HE SEES IT. That includes a balance between LOVE and JUSTICE. The truth as it is IN JESUS comes with GRACE.

I can appreciate the thoughts presented by Mahabir Ramkhelawan. He tried to introduce the balance between TRUTH and JUSTICE. I fear he was misunderstood.

Some comments made were attacks on people, not concepts. We have every right to judge between TRUTH and ERROR. We should never judge the person, supposing that we “know” why a person is thinking along such “evil” lines.

We should be sincere in searching for truth. We should suppose that every other person is just as sincere in that search. there is no room to pass judgment on the motives of the others.

Our church, we must remember, was founded precisely because some people in other churches dared to be “open-minded” enough to investigate truth. Through prayer and Bible study they found TRUTH, and it was different from what they previously believed. That is the result of an open mind. That is the foundation of the Adventist church.

How could they have found truth through being open-minded? How is it that they came out of error? Their hearts were RIGHT (motive) and the Holy Spirit was invited into their study.

The JEWS defended “truth” to the point of murder. Jesus defended TRUTH to the point of death. I see a subtle difference here.  Shirley Heisey(Quote)

Dear Kevin,
Happy Sabbath,to you!I want to thank you for your June 16 reply to my June 15 comment. It has been very helpful to me. It has helped me to see the problems inherent in human communication! To see what I’m talking about, let’s look again at what I wrote and how you responded:

1.In my opening paragraph,I talked about having (capitals now for emphasis)OPEN,CANDID,HONEST, E-V-A-L-U-A-T-I-O-N of BOTH the BIBLICAL and SCIENTIFIC DATA, regarding the creation/evolution issue.”

In your opening paragraph, you responded :”But you are quite wrong if you insist that human beings have (my capitals for emphasis) NO PROACTIVE ROLE TO PLAY IN THE VINDICATION OF TRUTH.”

I talk about our EVALUATION of the available data. I emphasize that it should be OPEN,CANDID and HONEST! If I wanted to say that we should have “no proactive role to play”, then I wouldn’t be talking about EVALUATION! I would simply say that we DON’T EVEN HAVE TO DISCUSS THE ISSUE!” Obviously, what I say is different from what you “THINK” I say!

2. In your second paragraph, you say:” Please don’t forget if we accept evolution, love for one another ceases to exist.”

Again, I talk about open, candid, honest EVALUATION. And you respond with “accepting evolution”. Why do you equate having open, candid, honest EVALUATION of all the available, relevant data with “ACCEPTING EVOLUTION? I did NOT say that! Why should you? Are you NOT SURE of your beliefs? (Notice that I am asking, not implying) I was born in the Seventh-day Adventist church! In fact, I was baptised EVEN BEFORE I WAS BORN! How? My mother was baptised when she was pregnant with me. So I was baptised in the womb and then again when I was twelve. Before I could even read, I was already giving “picture Bible studies” from the big, old volumes of Patriarchs and Prophets,Prophets and Kings, Desire of Ages, Christ’s Object Lessons and Great Controversy. I attended SDA schools. I have never belonged to another church. But I don’t feel that I have to be scared about making open, candid, honest evaluation of the latest, available information in BOTH the biblical and scientific areas. I do NOT equate open, candid, honest, professional investigation with “accepting evolution.”

Do ALL SDA’s still own and read only the KJV? There was a time when we all quoted Jesus as telling the Jews: “Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they which testify of me.” The KJV has it as a command. But now we understand that Jesus was pointing out to them that they they were forever searching the Scriptures because they believed that in the Torah–the written teachings,(the only Scriptures available to them) eternal life was to be had. And He pointed out that eternal life was in HIM-the Person- and Not in the written letter on parchment. Jesus was correcting their INCORECT understanding of the BOOK they prized so much! lIFE IS IN HIM, NOT in the BOOK! – And this correct understanding came to us because of more accurate translations! So why be SCARED (?) of doing the same with other areas of research. Look, if it’s not correct, it’s not correct and this WILL come out! Now there have been and are those in the sciences who are just as scared/reluctant to be open and up-front in those fields. Just look at the Piltdown Hoax, for one example. There was a time when the so called, Piltdown man was trumpted as THE MOISSING LINK! But not anymore! Truth will vindicate itself if we are OPEN, CANDID, HONEST and realize that, as the old saying goes:” You can fool some of the people some of the time,…..” Truth vindicates itself. Sometimes we are more hurry than God. But He sees to it. God can wait, but we can’t,right? And we run the risk of ROOTING OUT THE WHEAT with the tares

3. In your third paragraph, you say:”The let go and let God view of church affairs… is mistaken…..we have an active part to play..”

If I wanted to say that we should NOT have an active part to play in the affairs of our church, I would have just said so! If I wanted to say that we should just “let go and let God”, I would have said so. Please notice that ALL ALONG I MAINTAIN THAT WE SHOULD HAVE DISCUSSIONS. WE SHOULD PARTICIPATE. But what I emphaisze, again and again is that we must do so WITHOUT BEING VINDICTIVE, AND IN A SPIRIT OF CHRIST’S LOVE! And finally, it is the Creator who vindicates. And sometimes he seems to do so in ways that, FRANKLY, SURPRISE THOSE AMONG US WHO WOULD SEEM TO BE THE MOST AUTHORITATIVE! It’s common knowledge the we, too, along with ALL other religions/denominations, have had incorrect understanding of certain parts of Scripture. And we have corrected some of our former beliefs and practices,whether or not ALL SDA’s know or care to admit it. But this does NOT mean to say that we have been incorrect on everything. Nor does it mean to say, that, in the light of that, we should simply abandon ALL our beliefs. But it is to say that, if we would learn from our experiences, we would do well to EXAMINE ALL THE PERTINENT INFORMATION AS IT BECOMES AVAILABLE. hINDSIGHT IS ALWAYS BETTER THAN FORESIGHT! And why would we NOT want to do so? How else can we have OPEN, CANDID, HONEST, PROFESSIONAL INVESTIGATION?

In my second paragraph, I say.:”Galileo…said the sun, not the earth is the center of our solar system..” I referred SPECIFICALLY to the issue of the earth or the sun being the center..

Your reply was: “The problem in Galileo’s day was that the church had not considered the Biblical evidence in confronting Galileo.” But you did NOT give the ‘Biblical evidence’ you say the church did not consider! Where does Genesis or any other part of the Bible say that the earth is the center of the solar system? I was NOT talking about the church’s tradition taking the place of Scripture. You brought that in. My point is that Galileo asked the churchmen to simply LOOK through his telescope to see the evidence. But they refused to even look! Not even the tinest peek! Their attitude was:’We don’t have to LOOK. We already KNOW what the Bible says!” The lesson is that in the earth/sun-center issue, the church made a BIG BOO-BOO because they would NOT EVALUATE what they THOUGHT the Bible said!

The simple truth is that they were NOt saying what the Bible said. They were merely IMPOSING the CURRENTLY HELD WORLD’ VIEW on the Bible! For milennia, people had looked up and SEEN the sun rise, march across the skies and set in the west. They seen a flat earth and concluded that the sun moved around the earth. they had looked up into the skies and seen the other stars as faint points of light. So they concluded that the earth was the big important, central figure.The Bible didn’t say so. They THOUGHT it said so!

I could contine,pointing out how you MISUNDERSTOOD what I wrote. But spacewise, I will simply ask that you REREAD what I wrote and stick to what I said. I did not say that we should believe in evolution. I did not say that we should say that we should not have a proactive part in the affairs of the church. I did not say that we should have a naive let go and let God attitude. I WANT to see OPEN,CANDID, HONEST, investigation and participation among brothers and sisters.

Please respond to my observations regarding your comments about what I wrote. But please stick to WHAT I WROTE. NOT TO WHAT YOU THINK I WROTE.

Blessings on you and all of us!

In Christ,
your brother,
Mahabir.  Mahabir Ramkhelawan(Quote)

Maybe I am just plainly naive. But I don’t see why both theologians and scientists involved with the creation/evolution question within Adventism should not have ONGOING DIALOGUES and certainly NOT just a ONE TIME BIG EVENT. It seems that some (a majority?)just want us to come together to simply REAFFIRM what we have been saying all along. If that would be the case, why bother to even discuss it at all? We already know what we have been saying. Neither am I saying that we should come together to simply say: “OK, the official position of the church is wrong. So let’s all just change it.

I am NOT a scientist. Neither was I a science major at school. And, honestly, I have NOT BEEN KEEPING myself informed of the ONGOING strides in biology, geneticS, chemestry, physics, astronomy, etc. This is to my discredit and disadvantage. Also, I was NOT a theology major. Neither have I been keeping up with the latest investigations and understandings in Biblical research. Again, this is also to my discredit and disadvantage! If my mother and later, my father, were NOT willing to have open minds and investigate, they would not have become Adventists.

I have not been fortunate or unfortunate to live in an Adventist “ghetto” or “safe city” like Loma Linda or any other areas where the population is mostly Adventist. Daily, I rub shoulders with Hindus, Christians, Moslems, Buddhists and people from other religious perspectives. So I know, from experience, what it is to be QUESTIONED about what you say you believe! I also know the frustrion of giving facile answers to people who ask PROFOUND QUESTIONS. (And you realise that your explanations are sadly inadequate!) It’s one thing to discuss ” speaking in tongues” with a Pentecostal or “once saved always saved” with a Baptist or even the Sabbath/ Sunday question with some one who is well-dressed, well fed in a comfortable FIRST WORLD, air-conditioned setting. It’s a different thing to try to talk about a loving God to someone who never has enough to eat and in rags and who daily experiences the effects of what great, industrial
WESTERN SUPERPOWERS (which they see as Christian) impose on third world countries! So, when some one throws out questions, it’s not good to jump to conclusions that they may be “playing the devil’s advocate” or “judging God” or saying the “Bible is evil” or needing to accept Jesus” or what have you! The old native American saying reminds us that we can’t really judge (understand) a fellow human until we have “walked in his moccasins”!

I read many “it’s the devil attacking God’s remnant church” type of comments posted here. But could it be that the creation/evolution questions that have arisen in our church will serve to DRIVE many of us COMPLACENT Adventists to RENEWED STUDY AND RESEARCH? I,for one, admit that I DO need to do that! But I have to be careful that I don’t simply dig out my notes and study outlines etc., that have been gathering dust. As I dig them out, I also need to get a hold of materials that reflect the RECENT, ONGOING, CONTINUING, INVESTIGATION available in BOTH the Biblical and scientific arenas!

And I DON’T have to be SCARED of anything! After all, that’s the way our Creator Father OBVIOUSLY wants it! He wants us to search, STUDY, COMPARE, CRITIQUE, EVALUATE IN ORDER FOR US TO ARRIVE AT TRUTH! If HE were scared for us to THINK, ( and not just think that we are “thinking”) He obviously WOULDN’T have given us the ability to do so! He didn’t make us robots! He DIDN’T program us. So let’s be INTELLECTUALLY HONEST, and in a spirity of Christian charity, honesty and transparency have CONTINUING, ONGOING, DIALOGUE!

When John F. Kennedy was running for President of the USA, many DEVOUT members in our small church were SURE that he would bring in the Sunday laws, the Mark of the Beast, persecutions for Seventh-Day Adventists, etc., etc.! And I must admit that I was among them! You see, we “KNEW FROM THE BIBLE AND THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY” that If a Roman Catholic became president of the USA, that would usher in the fulfilling of a whole series of Bible prophecies! Even some pastors believed that! Well, we were simply WRONG! Despite all the “proof texts” from the Bible, and Spirit of Prophecy quotations we produced, the truth is WE WERE SIMPLY WRONG!!

When Kennedy later said that the USA would put a man on the moon within a decade, some of us learned from our former wrong predictions. But there were still some who again tried to put words in God’s mouth. They were SURE that God would NOT allow man to leave this SINFUL earth to go into outer space! Well, again, well-meaning, Bible-oriented people were WRONG!

Just a few years ago, a group of us went out into the streets to do some witnessing. We carried water, food, clothes, and of course, adventist literature to distribute. The one who did the speaking was a sister with Ph.D. in theology. As she related the creation story of how God “FORMED” Adam from the “dust of the ground,” she bent over and used her hands to scrape dust together and shape a human figure on the ground. Then she knelt down and lowered her face to show how God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.” Afterward, I said to her:”That was a vivid, dramatic way you depicted the creation. I bet they will remember it!”

She replied,”I was NOT merely dramatizing it. That’s the way God how God actually made man! The Bible says so!” There are labels we put on one another. We talk about ‘fundamentalists’ people who believe in the literal, verbal, word-for-word inspiration of the Bible. And in church there are some brothers and sisters who still believe that God gave dictation to the writers of the Bible:”OK, Moses, pick up your pen and start writing,’In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth’.” But let’s be charitable and NOT deride them. Hey, at one time, maybe all(?) of our spiritual ancestors in Adventism believed the same! Thankfully, most(?) of us have “EVOLVED”(?) to better understanding of the Bible! I, for one, will begin to study again! Hope you, too, do the same. Biblical and scientific research will NOT stop, even if we do!

Blessings from the Creator Father to us ALL!  Mahabir Ramkhelawan(Quote)

@Mahabir Ramkhelawan:

So, not only those Adventist pioneers, but my mother, too, and the others who had become Seventh-day Adventists would certainly feel that they were in the wrong church if they were to be present at this General Conference session.

That is an interesting story. Should we eisegete the text of Ex 20:8-11 to fit whatever doctrine on origins is found in evolutionism or should we bend both Genesis 1:2-2:3 as well?

The fall of man?

How about the world wide flood? Does that go as well?

How much of the bible do we toss out the window so that evolutionism will be unchallenged?

in Christ,

Bob  BobRyan(Quote)

Hi Bob,

That was NOT just an interesting “story”. That was an example of how much The Seventh-day Adventist church has CHANGED over the years! I guess if you are a young or recent Adventist who has NEVER seen ADVENTISM OUTSIDE of the USA, THE WAY IT WAS IN THE OLD DAYS, ( AND TO SOME EXTENT, STILL IS) these examples could sound like “interesting stories”!

I said NOTHing about “exegeting EX 20:8-11 or “bending” Genesis 1:2; 2:3 or the fall of man or “tossing out…. much of the Bible…so that evolution will be unchallenged” If you re-read carefully what I wrote, and if you follow my reasoning, you will see that I cited all those incidents to SHOW ONE THING—that our curch has CHANGED SOME OF ITS POSITION NOT ONLY IN DOCTRINES BUT ALSO IN PRACTICE!!!

Some of the doctrines and practices that we ENFORCED made the lives of many of its members NEEDLESSLY UNCOMFORTABLE AND BROUGHT HEARTACHE AND SUFFERING THAT WOULDN’T HAVE BEEN IF WE HAD UNDERSTOOD SCRIPTURE CORRECTLY!

Bob, THIS IS THE POINT I AM MAKING!!!

And why am I emphasizing this? Because sometimess we think the Bible says one thing But, it turns out AFTERWARD that the Bible did NOT say so. WE THOUGHT it said so!

Please notice I am NOT saying that We have been incorrect on EVERYTHING. Nevertheless, the lesson we ought to learn is that we should be careful that we REALLY UNDERSTAND what the Bible is saying so that we do NOT enforce wrong conclusions, AS IN THE PAST, WHICH HAVE CAUSED NEEDLESS SUFFERING TO OUR BROTHERS AND SISTERS! Also, when we later realize that we were incorrect, IT IS VERY EMBARRASING FOR THE CHURCH TO HAVE TO ADMIT THIS! Then there is the temptation to take the “EASIER” option of just keeping quiet, or trying to sweep it under the rug, or even deny we were incorrect in what we were teaching! But, sooner or later, TRUTH ALWAYS REVEALS ITSELF! As I mentioned before, it took the Roman Catholic church CENTURIES before it found the courage to finally admit that it was wrong, And look how much suffering Galileo was made to bear!

My argument is NOT that the church should EXEGETE OR BEND SCRIPTURE so that darwinian evolution will go unchallenged. The SDA schools I attended taught CREATION. And, like most Adventists in my neck of the woods, I did NOT subsequently go on to inform myself on the topic. Of course, every Adventist KNEW that Darwin “taught that man came from momkey.” And whenever someone would say so, we all would have a good laugh, and that was the end of that.

Just like you, I read in Genesis that God made man from the dust of the ground. Like you, I too, DO Believe that god did create man. That was how my parents and all the members in church and my teachers at school understood it. And it’s seems likely that some or most, if not all of our Adventist founders could have UNDERSTOOD that God did it the way our SDA sister–a Ph.D. to booth, demonstrated it. She believed that God literaally bent over and used his two hands to scraape dust together and make a big dirt body and then knelt down and put HIS nose to the nose of the dirt body and breathed His breathe into it to make Adam.

But, like it or not, over the years, a growing number of SDA’s have been looking at the possibility that we really DON’T KKNOW how God ACTUALLY created man. Yes, He created man. But does Genesis go into details as to HOW the Creator actually DID it? Since the Bible does NOT explain exactly HOW He did it, must we limit the transcendent, omniscient, omnipotent Creator to the way we puny humans THINK HE did it?

And IF the latest findings in the different branches of biology, genetics, physics, chemistry , astronomy etc., are revealing that our UNDERSTANDING of the EXACT METHOD GOD used in creating man does NOT stand up to scientific evidence, then we DON’T have to be scared. Truth will ALWAYS SHOW itself, WHETHER OR NOT WE LIKE IT! This is my thinking. That’s what I am saying.

Look, how can I be INTELLECTUALLY HONEST if I simply say I KNOW EXACTLYJUST HOW GOD MADE MAN and I don’t examine the relevant, ONGOING
findings available to me? Well, I trust that I have made myself clear and that you NOW UNDERSATND that I WAS NOT saying that we should “EXEGETE” or “BEND SCRIPTURE” so that Darwinian evolution goes unchallenged. I don’t know how else to say it so that you will understand what I am saying. Maybe if I said it in HINDI You understand me better? (smile)

If our UNDERSTANDING of exactly HOW God made man is correct, we have nothing to fear! Truth will vindicate itself. If we are not altogether correct, why would we NOT want to correct it? TRUTH is what is important. We have been wrong before! And it is always more difficult and embarrasing to have to do it later! This is the way human nature is.

Bob, what the Bible says is NOT in question. God created man. What we should investigate is if our UNDERSTANDING of HOW He did it is altogether correct. We HAVE been wrong before. So why should we be AFRAID TO CHECK it out again? Which would be better? For us to make any adjustments (IF ANY) NOW, or to have to ddo so later, when it would be EMBARASSING etc., etc.
TRUTH is what we are after. Have NO FEAR! TRUTH MUST TRIUMPH! aND IT WILL. cOURAGE, BROTHER!

Blessing from the Creator? Father on you ans us all!  Mahabir Ramkhelawan(Quote)