There may also be evidence in the Bible for the …

Comment on Louie Bishop Testifies, Again, about His Experience at La Sierra University by Wendell Slatterry.

There may also be evidence in the Bible for the big bang. Consider this verse:

Isa 42:5 “Thus says God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out;….”

He stretched out the heavens. Is that describing the expansion of space itself? It seems reasonable to me that this is talking about that.

Wendell Slatterry Also Commented

Louie Bishop Testifies, Again, about His Experience at La Sierra University
If evolution as taught by geologists is the full and complete answer to origins, then there is absolutely no point in being a Christian. If God does NOT have the power to create us as he says he did in the Bible, then there is no way he can recreate you again. Therefore, if evolution is the correct answer, then there is no resurrection, no heaven, and no hell and no consequences in eternity for what you and I do. Further, God is a liar for he told us a fairy tale in the creation story. Hitler and many others like him in history will get away with killing millions of people with no justice coming to them.

If the things that Louie Bishop represents are true (and I am inclined to believe him), then what I have just said above is the message that every thinking LSU student will get out of their science and religion classes. Is this the message parents send their students to LSU to learn and pay good money for? Is this the message that the church wants sent to students at LSU?

It is one thing to teach evolution so that students understand how the world thinks and at the same time, presenting the Bible as the true answer to life’s origins. With the real facts presented from science, students can study these issues and make up their own minds with the facts presented. I will support teachers in doing this.

But its an entirely different thing to teach that evolution is the true origin of life and the Bible is to be regarded as full of fairy tales. I will never support teachers in teaching that evolution is the true answer on the question of origins. Teachers who do this make a serious mistake. God is real, he is all-powerful, evolution is not the correct answer to origins, and the judgment day is coming for all. The cost of such teaching will be fearfully high. And it is coming much sooner than most SDAs think it is. The church needs to turn this thing around, and the sooner the better.

Recent Comments by Wendell Slatterry

The Rise of Theistic Evolutionism – The Salvation of Christianity?
Bill Sorensen,

I think that it is a terrible ordeal because when this comes about, you are either ready or you are not. Those who are not ready become desperate to become ready, but find that they cannot do so. The result is a desperate realization that they are lost. Yet, they look for salvation, but in the end, they find that they are receiving the plagues and definitely are lost. Many within the church will leave and those around them who remain will feel the sadness of their leaving because of the reason behind it.

The parable of the 10 virgins teaches exactly that this is what happens. Remember that there were 5 without sufficient oil and they were told to go out and buy more oil. So, they go looking for it. When they have found it, then they come knocking on the door, but they are not admitted because it is too late.

The oil represents the Holy Spirit in the early and middle parts of the parable, but at the end, I believe that it represents the word of God because when the door is closed, that is the end of the investigative judgment. There will be no Holy Spirit for anyone not saved once this happens, and yet in the parable, the five foolish virgins show up at the door, apparently having found the oil. But this oil at this point cannot represent the Holy Spirit because it will be impossible for them to have it then. Rather, I think that what it must represent then is soem experience and knowledge that they have lacked, particularly some particular type of knowledge that is found in the Bible, and once they find it and understand it, they think they are ready, but find that they are not to be admitted and will never be.

For whatever its worth, this is my understanding of this.

The Rise of Theistic Evolutionism – The Salvation of Christianity?

I don’t fully understand this debate either. What I do not understand is why Seventh-day Adventists would ever consider theistic evolution to be true. I am saying that while the scientific evidence does appear to support it, there is the issue of the truthfulness of God and the Bible. If one accepts that God is true and does not lie, then why disbelieve what he says in Genesis? If one accepts that, then be a Christian. If one does not accept that, then go out and enjoy the world. There is no significant future for such, whether they be in the church or not because they do not believe God. The Bible says that salvation is by faith and if you don’t believe him, you have no salvation even if you are a Seventh-day Adventist.

So, it is by faith. We have an eyewitness. Do we believe him or not?

The Rise of Theistic Evolutionism – The Salvation of Christianity?
To Holly Pham,

You are right about that, of course. The woman who wrote me about this says that she was talking to someone about the work that Walter Veith has done (she believes what Walter Veith is doing is right) on teaching creationism and this pastor apparently made comments to the person she was talking to which effectively negated what she had just said. Aside from the issue of how this pastor handled this, there is the issue of him being plain wrong about it because he should not be doing that.

I urged her to report this pastor to her conference, but she declined. I don’t know why. This woman lives in the Seattle area and attends a church in that area. I live in Southern California, so am not in the same conference. I have not attended this man’s church, so cannot vouch for what she is saying from personal observation, so I doubt that the Washington conference would pay much attention to what I say about him.

I have done some investigation and discovered that this man has comoe to the attention of this web site before. He has written and published on the Internet a letter that was written against the letter that David Asherick sent out about the teaching of evolution at La Sierra, so you may well be able to guess who this person is. I did not realize that he had done this. I have read over his letter, and while some of what he says is partly true, there is a lack of understanding on his part of just what SDAs have been taught about creation and evolution.

Given the notoriety that has already attended this man’s presence in that church (which I did not realize was the case before last night), my guess is that his conference is well aware of what he is doing and has done nothing so far to stop it.

Unfortunately, this lack of action by the conference is not helping the kids in his congregation who have gone through his evolution class in church, nor does it help anyone else influenced by such thinking. To be honest with you, I think that someone needs to develop a more coherent plan of action on what to teach the children in the church about evolution and creation, and do so in a way that supports the Bible rather than the science. Science is good in so far as it can measure things, but it cannot know the whole story based on circumstantial evidence.

Let me add this little story about circumstantial evidence. Years ago my father told me of a man who was dating a young woman (this event happened in the state of Nebraska). There was another young man who wanted this girl and was jealous of the young man who was dating her. One day this fellow went to the place where she was living and killed her. Before he killed her, he learned from her that the young man that she was dating was to see her a short while later. Knowing this, he left her purse outside her home, knowing that this fellow would come by later and find it, and apparently not finding her home, would likely take the purse home with him, expecting to give it to her later when he next saw her. That worked, because her boyfriend did find the purse and took it home after she did not answer the doorbell. Of course, the police were called and they went looking for the boyfriend, and finding her purse in his possession, they arrested him for having murdered her. Based on the circumstantial evidence that he had her purse and apparently was known to have been to her home at about the time the murder took place, put him up for trial, where he was convicted of murder. He was later executed for that crime that he did not commit. Years later the other young man finally admitted on his deathbed what he had done. Of course, it was too late for the state to do anything about it, but God will take care of it later.

The point of this is that all scientific evidence of life having been here for billions of years is circumstantial in nature. It is the best that science, apart from the Bible, can do because we do not have time machines with which we can go back in time and witness the events happening and prove that they happened as they say they did. But circumstantial evidence can be misleading, just as it was in the case of that your fellow who was executed for a murder that he did not do. Circumstantial evidence can be misleading for many scientific reasons, but these would be reasons that science has failed to either understand or account for. Scientists do not know everything that has happened in this universe and even they are beginning to admit that there likely is a lot of physics that they do not at present know. Some physicists even say that we may never be able to actually know what reality is. There are just so many bizarre things that go on in our universe everyday that scientists cannot explain, even if we have mathematics that can quantify it. They cannot know all. That is the bottom line. They have no eyewitnesses to their proposed events of the long ago past. We have an eyewitness. Therein lies the difference.

The Rise of Theistic Evolutionism – The Salvation of Christianity?
Leona Peterman,

I very much agree with you. God’s word will stand in spite of all the “evidence” that the scientists have available. The prophecies prove that, which is why I have chosen to believe the Bible rather than the evolutionists.

The book of Daniel proves that abundantly. There are many who claim that the book of Daniel was written around 164 BC. But there are 2 major problems with that. First, whoever wrote the book of Daniel knew of king Belshazzar. I have read in history that he and his father Nabonidus were not well liked by anyone in Babylon at that time, so were quickly forgotten after Babylon fell. Within a few generations of them, it was thought that Nabonidus had some woman as co-ruler with him rather than Belshazzar, so that as a result, people thought that Belshazzar was a made up name in the Bible until it was proven from tablets of Babylon that he was in fact the second in command. Also, according to those who are experts in the ancient languagues, the Aramaic in Daniel was written in a form not used previous to the time of Daniel nor after his time, thus showing that only a person living in the actual time of Nebuchadnezzar could have written the book of Daniel.

There are prophecies in Daniel that have been accurately fulfilled. Not only did we get the four kingdoms predicted, but also there is the prediction of the rise of the Papacy in Daniel 2 with the combining of church and state, and that is followed by the prediction of the Protestant Reformation and it predicts some separation of church and state to accompany that. In Daniel 7 and 8 it gives us additional details of the Papal power and its action. These prophecies have been accurately fulfilled thousands of years after the prophecies and long after 164 BC – even if the book had been written then, which it was not. Thus, only God could have done this. Assuming time were to last another, oh say, 2000 years, nobody could accurately predict what would happen a thousand years from now. Hey, we cannot even predict accurately more than a few days. Look how the Berlin Wall went down and NOBODY saw that coming until just a few weeks before it happened.

The Rise of Theistic Evolutionism – The Salvation of Christianity?

Hey, I am still chuckling over your comments about the brain waves. Well, I’ll see what I can do. Mine are not that strong either, so maybe with enough power hey, we could change the past! That’ll be wonderful if it actually worked. But my guess is that it probably won’t. It seems to me that if brain waves could go back in time, then why can we not go back in time too? There are a whole lot of stupid mistakes I have done in my life that I would sure like to reverse!

Seriously, though, lets turn to your question about the prophecy discovery I made. I’ll be as brief here as I can because the whole explanation of everything behind this is rather long, which you can find on my web site on the home page (which needs revised to shorten it, but I have not had the time yet to do so).

It works like this. The first beast in Revelation 13 shows a pattern after the life of Jesus. Jesus had a ministry that spanned about 3.5 years (about 1260 literal days). The beast has a time of power of 3.5 symbolic years (representing literally 1260 years). Jesus was baptized and came up out of water. The beast comes up out of water. The beast received a wound as to death, and yet lives. Jesus received a wound as to death, and yet was resurrected, so lived. Jesus has a ministry in the sanctuary in heaven, and the beast commits blasphemy against the sanctuary (which means the sanctuary in heaven because there is no earthly sanctuary now), meaning that it claims the same position as Christ, thereby saying indirectly that it is claiming the sanctuary services for its own and it replaces Christ in the services of the sanctuary. This also implies that it claims the power to forgive sins because that is what one goes to the sanctuary for, to obtain forgiveness of sins, and is what Jesus obtains for us in the sanctuary. It also is given power over the people of God, the power of life and death over them. This is the same power that Christ, as God, has over the people of God, only he uses it for good rather than evil, unlike the beast.

There are several other similarities, but what this all points to is that the first beast in Revelation 13 is an imitation of Christ, meaning it is the Antichrist.

There is only one power that fits all of these things, and that is the Catholic Church. It alone among Christian denominations of any size claims the power to forgive sins against God’s laws. And its popes have claimed to actually be Christ.

Now, this beast has blasphemy written all over it. This blasphemy points to its claim to be able to forgive sins against God’s laws and to actually be God because it is the Antichrist and Jesus was accused of speaking blasphemy by claiming to forgive sins against God’s laws and to actually be God himself. The same pattern is followed here.

In Revelation 17, there is blasphemy all over the beast. This tells me that the beast is Papal, both the body and its heads are Papal, just like the beast in Revelation 13. The horns, however, are different because Revelation 17:13 says that these hand their power and authority to the beast someday, which indicates that they are not Papal (it cannot hand power to itself, so they have to be different). Because the beast in Revelation 13 is Papal and the beast in Revelation 17 is Papal, then both beasts represent the same power even though they look very different. The horns of the first beast in Revelation 13 does not have, nor does it speak blasphemy, so these horns are not Papal, which tells us that the horns in Revelation 17 are not Papal either. They are the Protestant Religions that came out of Catholicism.

Now, the pattern in Daniel is that for a beast with multiple heads and multiple horns, the body represents the first stage of the history of that power, the heads represent the second stage of its history, and the horns represent the last stage of its history. This same pattern applies in Revelation 13 and 17.

Now, the 7 heads of the beast in Revelation 17 represents the 7 lines of popes by name since 1798. In Daniel, beasts are defined as kings (Daniel 7:17) and these “kings” in Daniel are also symbolic, in that they represent lines of individual kings, each of whose lines is named for their founder (something that you can learn in Daniel 2 from the statue). In the Papal system, since 1798 there have been 7 lines of popes by name, which are such as the lines of John Paul and Benedict.

Now, here is where this comes together to explain what I found. In Revelation 17:11, it says this:

Rev 17:11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

The beast that was is the Papacy when it had the power to persecute people in other nations outside of Italy, a power that was largely eliminated in 1798. Right now it has little or no such power, but according to Revelation 13 and 17, this “beast”, the Catholic Church combined with the nations outside of Italy in Europe which give the church the power to persecute people, will return someday very soon.

Now, it says that this beast is the 8th. This means that the one called the 8th is the returned beast, or in other words, the 8th is its leader – pope. But note that it never calls him a “king” (remember that the kings of Revelation 17 are the same type of kings as those of Daniel 7, they are lines of kings always), unlike the 7 heads which are also 7 kings and 7 mountains. A king is a line of kings and a mountain represents a groups of gods (a mountain is a large pile of rocks, see Deuteronomy 32:37 which equates a rock to a group of gods). Since he is not a “king” as defined in Daniel 7, then he is a single individual. Also, he is not a head and he is not a mountain, meaning he is not a line of kings and he is not a GROUP of gods, but he can be one invididual “god.”

Now, what it says is that the 8th IS the beast and is of the seven. This phrase, that he is of the seven has puzzled people for centuries. But on April 19, 2005, the day that Benedict XVI was announced as pope, I was the first to discover that he would change his name. Here is how this phrase explain that detail. The “seven” are 7 lines of Papal kings by name which occur after 1798, which points to the names such as Benedict and John Paul. It says that the 8th is “of the seven”. The original Greek for the word “of” in that phrase means “to come out of or from a time or place”, and can also mean “after”, though that is much less commonly used. I suddenly realized on that day that what it is saying is that the 8th comes OUT OF the 7, meaning that the 8th, the pope who will be the leader of the returned beast, will come out of the 7 names previously used. But to be the 8th is to have a name never used before in Papal history. If it had a previously used name, it would not be called the 8th and would also be said to be a king because then there would be more than one pope in the line. This pope name will not be a line, but will have just one name in it.

Anyway, what I finally figured out is that this 8th with the new name will come out of the seven names, so I realized that the logical explanation of that is that he will first start as one of the seven names (he chose Benedict), and will someday change it to the 8th name, a name never used before in Papal history. It says that the beast is the 8th, and we know that the beast is the persecuting power of the state and church combined as happened before 1798, so this is telling you that when this man gets the power to persecute people, THEN he will change his name to a new name never used before in Papal history.

Now, I know that this is very brief and rather complicated, but other information related to this in our study fits Papal history exactly so far in what has happened. Whether this name change will do so remains to be proven by him actually doing it.

But there is more.

It turns out that there is a connection between Revelation 13:18 and Revelation 17:9 because it deals with the same power and says that there is wisdom in figuring out those two verses. There are several ways to figure 666, and people argue about that a lot. But here is what Revelation 13:18 tells us to do. It says to count the number of the beast. But beasts are kings, so count the numbers of the kings (it does not say to count the number of a title). But kings are lines of kings. Now, if you look at the list of popes that the Catholic Church has, you will find that there are 36 “kings” of the Papacy, that is, there are 36 lines of popes with more than one name to them. The last of those was made certain at the moment of the death of John Paul II. His death made certain that there was a “king” (a line of popes with more than one individual in it by the same name) by the name of John Paul. You could not know that until he died. Here is what is interesting. His was the 36th line.

Now, make a list of these “kings” and then place count numbers by them (1, 2, 3 and so on, all the way to 36) with John Paul being the last on that list, the 36th. Now, add the numbers 1 to 36, and what do you get? 666. This means that at the moment of the death of John Paul, the number 666 came into being for the man who would next succeed him, Benedict XVI. This man Benedict XVI will become the 8th and it is he who will change his name to a name never used before in Papal history when he receives the power to persecute people through the law.

Revelation 17:11 goes on to say that the 8th goes to perdition (which means he goes to destruction), which, because he is the head of the Catholic Church, matches up with what is described to happen in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8 to the head of the Catholic Church. This man will die when Jesus comes again. And with his death, there will be no more popes after him.

There is another way to count 666 and inidicate the same thing, but at present is less certain. The 7 lines of popes can also be counted if you count the individual popes within each line, and as of the death of John Paul II, the count stood at 665. Benedict XVI is the 15th Benedict (they skipped Benedict X), so he now brings the total to 680. But when he changes the name, the Benedict name will not count (it is at death that their line is apparently determined in the Bible) and the new name he chooses will have a count of 1, to complete the count to 666.

I know this is rather complicated and longer than I want, but more detailed explanation is found on my web site at on the home page. Down towards the bottom of the home page you can find tables that show how the count towards 666 is done. Both methods are shown.

I hope this makes sense to you.