@Professor Kent: While this is a conspiracy, it is not …

Comment on The Metamorphosis of La Sierra University: an eye-witness account by Shane Hilde.

@Professor Kent: While this is a conspiracy, it is not a conspiracy theory. I have absolutely no reason based on my knowledge of the author and other facts about LSU that the information in the article is reliable and true.* This person was in the fray of it all. This isn’t someone who merely researched this, thus the ‘eye-witness account.’

*I have absolutely no reason, based on my knowledge of the author and other facts about LSU, that the information in the article is unreliable or false.

Shane Hilde Also Commented

The Metamorphosis of La Sierra University: an eye-witness account
@Bill Sorensen: The thought has crossed my mind to branch out, but at this point in time I think any effort to address anything else would water down the affect of Educate Truth.

The Metamorphosis of La Sierra University: an eye-witness account
@Bill Sorensen: Sean and I have discussed some of the ideas that have been going back and forth here in regard to evidence and faith etc. I haven’t been able to put my finger on it yet, but I believe I’m getting closer to understanding what the big difference is between what Sean is saying and a few others. I believe you are speaking from the perspective of someone who already assumes the Bible to be true–a divine revelation of God’s will to man. Sean on the other hand is speaking from the perspective of those who do not share that view, of which there are many in our church.

I think all he’s been trying to communicate is that if there is no way to validate the claims of the Bible, then on what basis can we claim that it’s any more authoritative than the Koran or Book of Mormon? Anything that validates the Bible can be considered evidence.

Do you not agree with what Ellen White said, “God never asks us to believe, without giving sufficient evidence upon which to base our faith. His existence, His character, the truthfulness of His Word, are all established by testimony that appeals to our reason; and this testimony is abundant” (MR No. 724).

Spiritual truths are grounded in physical realities. If we cannot show the Bible to be true in some form, than on what basis can we claim the spiritual claims of the Bible are true? Does that help clear things up? I think the circles you guys have been going in have been somewhat pointless, because I don’t believe you guys fundamentally disagree. Two things are causing the confusion: perspective and semantics.

The Metamorphosis of La Sierra University: an eye-witness account
@Bill Sorensen: Indeed, prophecy is a powerful affirmation of the veracity of the Bible. I think we both agree then that God has given us abundant testimony that his Word is truthful.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen Sean write that we all have an inherent knowledge of love and truth, but here’s what I do know for certain. God has revealed himself through nature too despite it being mared by sin. Here is what Paul said:

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Notice that God revealed the invisible things about himself through his creation. The attributes of God can be understood through the things he has made, even his eternal power and Godhead. No one is without any excuse. Many will be saved who do not know the name of Christ.

Granted there are limitations to what nature reveals, and so we have God’s divine revelation, which for the believer is our ultimate standard of truth. For those who do not yet believe this God has made a available other avenues to arrive at truth such as the laws of logic and observation of the natural world. Keep in mind the Holy Spirit is continually working on our hearts, especially those who are seeking after truth. The Holy Spirit also reveals truth.

Recent Comments by Shane Hilde

PUC responds
@Ariel: We’re not advocating that students shouldn’t be taught about opinions that are not Seventh-day Adventist. Evolution should be taught. The issue is how it is taught.

An apology to PUC
@Mary A. Jane: Despite how the information may be presented in other courses does not change the way in which this particular lecture. At this point the professor and PUC do not want to divulge the information on their other classes, so we’re left with the bad egg class.

An apology to PUC
@Mary A. Jane: The lecture on origins was the first of a series within the class dealing with the issue, or the lecture on origins was just one class in the series of classes of different topics? As far as I’ve been told by PUC’s statement and from a student in the class, there was no mention that there would be a follow up course. This is not to say that one will not occur, but if PUC was really concerned about context I’m really surprised it failed to mention any follow up course that would have brought some context to the lecture given in isolation.

By the way, the contention has nothing to do with Dr. Ness’s faith. This is just a red herring issue. His faith, Christianity, belief in God, etc, are not on the table despite what many here may think.

I may not know as much as you about the class, so please inform me what the next lecture in the series will be in regard to origins. When did they announce in the class there would be a follow up? Why wasn’t this information made public in PUC’s statement? Strange they would leave out such important information.

An apology to PUC
@Mary A. Jane: No, we’re not stating that at all. What gave you that impression? Did you read this statement, “While it is reasonable to present students with theories in science that conflict with our beliefs, how reasonable is it to just leave it at that–a string of conflicts with little, if any, resolution?”

Evolution should most definitely be taught in our schools, but within the context of what we believe to be true and the current evidence that supports those beliefs.

New NAD president: ‘I love you’ doesn’t mean we won’t deal with issues
@Professor Kent:

In Genesis 7:19, God says “[The waters] rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered.” You insist that “every inch of the earth was covered,” but to be “internally consistent,” you need to advance only 14 verses to Genesis 8:9, which reads, “But the dove could find no place to set its feet because there was water over all the surface of the earth; so it returned to Noah in the ark” (NIV). And from Genesis 8:5, we know that the tops of the mountains were visible 40 days before this! So if you are honest in being “internally consistent” with your interpretation of the coverage of water, you would recognize that you have been deceived. That, or perhaps you are simply intellectually dishonest.

There really isn’t any need to “insist” that every inch of earth was covered. The Bible makes it absolutely clear that it was covered.

“And the waters have been very very mighty on the earth, and covered are all the high mountains which [are] under the whole heavens; fifteen cubits upwards have the waters become mighty, and the mountains are covered;” Genesis 7:19, 20

Not only did the water cover all the high mountains by about 15 cubits, but there is the absent qualifying verses. Thus we’re left with a simple, but clear statement that all the earth was covered by water. Is there any verse to the contrary?

Now it appears you’re claiming that because the Bible says there were mountain tops showing 40 days before Noah sent out the dove this somehow shows that the earth was not completely covered, right? How you didn’t mention that in the beginning of chapter 8 it says:

The fountains of the deep and the windows of heaven were also stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained. And the waters receded continually from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters decreased.” Genesis 8:2, 3

The waters were receding and decreased. So the water level goes down, revealing the mountain tops. Dove is sent out but finds no life yet.

In regard to whether the all the animals died on the earth with exception to those on the ark, the Bible says this:

“And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man. 22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit[a] of life, all that was on the dry land, died. 23 So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth.” Genesis 7:21-23

This does not contradict 7:4, which says, “for after other seven days I am sending rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and have wiped away all the substance that I have made from off the face of the ground.” Other translations use earth instead of ground. Did he wipe away all the animals on the face of the earth? Yes. And what exactly did he mean when he said face of the earth? It’s all clarified in verses 21-23.

You’ve pointed out no inconsistencies in the idea that all the land on earth was entirely covered by water and that only the land animals, birds, surface animals died.