We aren’t talking about Church attendance or even membership here. …

Comment on Further definition on tap for Adventist fundamental belief on creation by Sean Pitman.

We aren’t talking about Church attendance or even membership here. We’re talking about being a paid representative of the SDA Church.

The only real reason why those in this forum oppose the proposed change to the wording of FB#6 is because they somehow think it leaves room for those who believe that life has existed and evolved on this planet over billions of years of time to teach this message in our classrooms and preach it from our pulpits. Even liberal scholars of Hebrew do not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis intended to convey anything other than the concept that the creation week was in fact a literal 6-day event. One would be hard pressed to better express the literal nature of the creation week than how it is already described in Genesis. Therefore, those who argue that the proposed changes to the wording of FB#6 are “extrabiblical” simply aren’t reading the account as it was obviously intended to be read by the author(s) who wrote it.

As Cliff pointed out, a change in wording wouldn’t be needed if professors working in our schools had not taken it upon themselves to attack the fundamental position of the SDA Church on this issue – on a doctrinal belief that forms the very basis of the name Seventh-day Adventist. Why should the SDA Church pay anyone to attack its most historically-cherished bedrock doctrinal beliefs? Even if the Church really is nuts, out of touch with reality, etc., what gives anyone the right to expect to be paid by the very Church that one is actively attacking in a very decided and fundamental manner? Here we have professors, as paid representatives of the SDA Church, telling their students that those who believe in the Church’s position on a literal 6-day creation week are part of the “lunatic fringe” and are like the ones who “fly airplanes into buildings.” Yet, these same people think to hide behind the supposed vagueness of the current wording of FB#6? Please… how disingenuous can one get?

If anyone really thinks the SDA Church is out to lunch on its very decided and very fundamental position on a literal 6-day creation week, by all means, join another Church that is more in line with your own views on this and other doctrinal beliefs. No big deal. As some in this forum have pointed out, this isn’t an issue of salvation in and of itself. This isn’t inherently a moral issue. However, taking money from an employer who has requested you to do one thing, but you decide to do the complete opposite, is a moral wrong. Regardless of how crazy you think your employer is, attacking your employer’s clearly-stated goals and ideals on the employer’s dime is still stealing. Stealing from crazy people is still stealing – a moral wrong in anyone’s book.

Sean Pitman

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Further definition on tap for Adventist fundamental belief on creation
For those who will no doubt argue that I’m mistaken in my suggestion that many liberal scholars of Hebrew support a literal interpretation of the Genesis narrative, consider the following comments from James Barr, late Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford:

“Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the “days” of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.”

Letter from Professor James Barr to David C.C. Watson of the UK, dated 23 April 1984.

James Barr also takes conservative evangelicals and other conservative scholars to task for insisting on a literal interpretation of Scripture but then abandoning it when it comes to the creation story in Genesis. Barr explains, in his work entitled Fundamentalism that, “as the scientific approach came to have more and more assent from fundamentalists themselves, they shifted their interpretation of the Bible passage from literal to non-literal in order to save… the inerrancy of the Bible. In order to avoid the consequence of an errant Bible, the fundamentalist “has tried every possible direction of interpretation other than the literal.” Yet, Barr rightly continues by noting that “in fact the only natural exegesis is a literal one, in the sense that this is what the author meant.”

James Barr, Fundamentalism, Philadelphia, PA: Westminster 1977, p. 42

Some criticize use of these quotes because Barr did not himself believe in the historicity of Genesis. But, that is precisely why his statement is so interesting: he believed the author(s) of Genesis got it wrong. With no need to try to harmonize Genesis with anything, because he does not see it as carrying any authority, Barr is free to state the clear intention of the author. This contrasts with some ‘evangelical’ theologians who try to retain some sense of authority without actually believing Genesis says much, if anything, about real history…

Hebrew scholar Dr Stephen Boyd has shown, using a statistical comparison of verb type frequencies of historical and poetic Hebrew texts, that Genesis 1 is clearly historical narrative, not ‘poetry’. He concluded, ‘There is only one tenable view of its plain sense: God created everything in six literal days.’

Stephen W. Boyd in chapter 6, “The Genre of Genesis 1:1-2:3”

Form critic Hermann Gunkel concluded long ago, “The ‘days’ are of course days and nothing else.”

Hermann Gunkel, Genesis übersetzt und erklärt (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1901), 97.

This refrain can be continued with many additional voices, sharing the same non-concordist position. Victor P. Hamilton concludes, as do other broad concordist neoevangelical scholars, “And whoever wrote Gen. l believed he was talking about literal days.”

Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17, The New International Commentary of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Ml: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 54.

John H. Stek, another broad concordist, makes a number of points in his support for literal “days”:

Surely there is no sign or hint within the narrative [of Genesis 1] itself that the author thought his ‘days’ to be irregular designations — first a series of undefined periods, then a series of solar days — or that the ‘days’ he bounded with ‘evening and morning’ could possibly be understood as long aeons of time. His language is plain and simple, and he speaks in plain and simple terms of one of the most common elements in humanity’s experience of the world…. In his storying of God’s creative acts, the author was ‘moved’ to sequence them after the manner of human acts and ‘time’ them after the pattern of created time in humanity’s arena of experience.

John H. Stek, “What Says Scripture?” Portraits of Creation, 237-238.

Numerous scholars and commentators, regardless of whether they are concordist or non-concordist, have concluded that the creation “days” cannot be anything but literal 24-hour days. They are fully aware of the figurative, non-literal interpretations of the word “day” in Genesis 1 for the sake of harmonization with the long ages demanded by the evolutionary model of origins. Yet, they insist on the ground of careful investigations of the usage of “day” in Genesis 1 and elsewhere that the true meaning and intention of a creation “day” is a literal day of 24 hours.

In short, there are very few if any liberal scholars of Hebrew (who have no inherent need to harmonize Scripture with mainstream science) who would support the idea that the author(s) of the Genesis account intended to convey anything other than a literal historical narrative of events. Now, there are many, if not all, liberal scholars who don’t believe the Genesis author(s) got it right, but arguing that the author(s) got it wrong isn’t the same thing as arguing that they didn’t intend to write a literal narrative of actual historical events.

In any case, it is and has always been the position of the organized SDA Church that the author of Genesis did in fact intend to convey to his readers a literal historical account of real events. For the Church to take a stand on a concept that forms the very basis of its name, a concept that is also well defended by many well-known liberal scholars of Hebrew (and the Church’s own prophet to boot), should not be surprising to anyone – especially when this fundamental position of the Church starts to become the target of determined attack by paid representatives of the Church (i.e., professors within the Church’s own schools). It is because of the boldness of their attacks against the Church’s historical position on origins that the Church is trying to make it very clear that such attacks will not be tolerated on the Church’s dime – that no one can continue to hide behind what some amazingly claim to be the vagueness of the language of the Bible or of FB#6 on this topic as a basis for their attacks while on the payroll of the SDA Church.

Sean Pitman, M.D.

Recent Comments by Sean Pitman

After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!

The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…

The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…

Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?

Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.

Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).

Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.