Comment on An appeal to our leadership by David Read.
“My comments have not addressed modern science.”
Yes, Geanna, that’s my point. You do not seem to be aware of the problems with the modern theory of evolution, and long-ages geology. To the contrary, these things seem so certain to you that you are willing to fold, spindle and mutilate the plain teachings of Scripture (and to completely toss out everything Ellen White wrote on the subject of creation and the Flood) in order to make the Bible fit with modern science. This is a project with which no believing Adventist will have any sympathy. (That there are many unbelievers who want to call themselves Adventists is of great concern to myself and others.)
Your implied history of Adventism and creationism is exactly backward. Adventists have always been young earth creationists; this view is implied by our belief in a literal six-day creation in the not too distant past. Ellen White also confirmed this worldview in scores, probably hundreds, of very clear statements, which have no need of “interpreting.” If you are interested in the history of our denominational thought on this subject, the historian Ronald Numbers, a former Adventist, details it in several of his writings and books. The lineage begins with Ellen White, and continues through George McCready Price, Frank Lewis Marsh, Harold Clark, Harold Coffin, Ariel Roth, Leonard Brand, etc. The attempt to cobble together a biblical world view with an atheistic worldview by marrying Adventism and Darwinism is a very recent development, a product of the past 30 years or so. It has very limited support outside of LaSierra. This strand of Adventist thought basically begins with the initiation of the Associaton of Adventist Forums and its publication, “Spectrum.” The overwhelming majority of Seventh-day Adventists, both in North America and around the world, remain young earth creationists.
David Read Also Commented
An appeal to our leadership
Erik, I think I understand your argument now, although the Socratic method was probably not the most efficient way to get it across.
You’re saying that Genesis 1:1: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and earth” is a summary ahead of time, or “proleptic” summary, and that the actual creating starts in verse 2. You’re also saying that the “earth” that Exodus 20:11 indicates was created in six days was the “dry land” that God created in Genesis 1:9 on day three (not the solid matter that you believe pre-existed the creation week).
Well, it is a good argument, but not compelling. First, verse 2 states that “the earth was without form and void,” and if there was preixisting matter then surely this formless and empty “earth” is it, because God had not said, “let there be” anything yet. But the word for “earth” in Genesis 1:2 is again Strong’s 776, “ha’aretz” or “erets,” the same “earth” that God named the “dry land” in verse 9, and the same “earth” that Exodus 20:11 says was created in six days.
In other words, there isn’t a different word to distinguish the hypothetical pre-existing solid matter from the “earth” that was created by gathering together the waters below the firmament into “seas” and thereby creating dry land. If Moses was trying to communicate that some solid matter pre-existed the Genesis week, why not use a different word for it? Why use the same word for everything? I again mention the very different cosmologies, because we may be trying to fit Moses into what we know about our cosmology. But maybe Moses was trying to describe not an empty solid sphere of inorganic matter, but empty space, or a cloud of gases, or who knows what?
Second, we’re still dealing with a gap theory of sorts, because you’re not denying that God created the formless and void “earth,” you’re just denying that He did so at the creation week. He must have created it long ago, 4.5 billion years ago, if convetional dating is to be trusted. But it doesn’t sound like God’s way of doing things to create a formless, void, chaotic, unfished, lifeless sphere, then wait for billions of years, then take a week to finish it off and stock with living creations. Does that sound to you like God’s way of doing things?
An appeal to our leadership
Geanna:
Dial back the melodrama. People here have tried to dialog with you, and patiently explain things to you, and you’ve been completely dismissive of everyone’s opinion but your own. You’ve latched onto weaknesses in the creationist model (chiefly re: biogeography), have not treated these subjects in a helpful or constructive way, have seemed obtuse and unable to understand creationist interpretations and approaches, have refused to acknowledge weaknesses in the mainstream origins model, and have been determined to interpret and misconstrue Scripture to make it fit with mainstream scientific assumptions.
It is clear that you are mainly interested in accommodating Adventism to mainstream, Darwinian science. I’ve warned you repeatedly that if you pursue this course, you will be an ideological opponent of all traditional Adventists. So please don’t be shocked and surprised when we treat you as such.
Your assertion that there was a time when Adventists didn’t have a strong doctrinal structure is just as fantastical and unreal as your previous assertion that Adventists only recently became creationists. The reality of the situation–and the only explanation for the Geanna Danes of the world–is that we are LESS “focused on theology, doctrine, rules, and self-governance” than we’ve ever been in our history as a movement. How in the world did we ever get to the point where we are producing people who imagine themselves to be Adventists yet seemingly have no clue what Adventism is? If we don’t get back to focusing on “theology, doctrine, rules and self-governance”, we’re going to become completely incoherent as a movement. Sadly, as demonstrated by LaSierra and the need for this website, this is already happening to a significant and substantial extent.
An appeal to our leadership
Erik:
I disagree with your argument that “the earth” that was created in six days, as indicated by Exodus 20:11, is the “dry land” of Genesis 1:9. The Hebrew word is the same in Genesis 1:1 as in Exodus 20:11: ha·’a·retz. (Strong’s 776). The “earth” that God created in Genesis 1:1 is the same “earth” that Exodus 20:11 indicates was created during the creation week. By contrast, the “dry land” of Genesis 1:9 is translated from the Hebrew term ” hai·yab·ba·shah” (Strong’s 3004). Therefore, I cannot go along with you that the “earth” (Ha’aretz) was created before, and pre-existed, the creation week of Genesis 1 (if that is in fact what you were arguing).
I’ll concede that you make a very interesting case for pre-existent water. There does seem to be a Hebrew belief that the world was made out of water; Peter states that, “the earth was formed out of water and by water.” 2 Peter 3:5. The Hebrew cosmology doesn’t seem to correspond to ours. The Hebrew word translated as “heavens,” shamayim, seems to literally mean “upper waters.” In Genesis 1:6-7, we are told that God created a “rakia” (ususally translated as “firmament”) to separate the waters above from the waters below. But in our cosmology, we only have the waters below. Thus, according to our cosmology, it would seem that the “heavens” or “upper waters” would correspond to outer space and the “firmament” to earth’s atmosphere, or the sky.
All this is interesting but irrelevant to the radiometric dating issue, because it is clear from Scripture that the “earth,” ha’aretz, was created during the creation week.
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.
