@krissmith777: You wrote: Yes, I do need a poll. Barr makes …

Comment on SDA Darwinians compromise key church doctrines by Sean Pitman.

@krissmith777:

You wrote:

Yes, I do need a poll. Barr makes it clear that he “thinks” that he represents the opinion; he never says that he does! Huge difference, pal. –What statistic does Barr cite? None, nada. Has he done a survey himself? No! Does it seem more likely that he just simply assumed it? Yes! — Until you cite more than pure opinion to back up your own, there is no hard reason to accept the argument’s premise. Until any actual confirmation, Barr’s opinion, though interesting, holds no real weight.

I dare say that for most people the opinion of someone as well known as well respected as James Barr, and Oxford Professor of Hebrew, would be given quite a bit of “real weight”.

Prof. Barr clearly said that he was unaware of more than a handful of serious Hebrew scholars at “world-class universities” living in his day who thought that the author(s) of the Genesis narrative truly intended to convey anything other than a literal historical narrative to their readers. Given Barr’s expertise in this particular field of study, one would think that he personally knew pretty much everyone of any significant influence in this field. It is hard to imagine, despite your suggestion to the contrary, that Barr didn’t really have a good grasp on the pulse of thought on this topic – that he was really just spouting off about something of which he really had no clue. What you’re suggesting along these lines really strains rational thought.

Of course, you do mention a few examples of scholars with contrary views, such as Gleason Archer or Walter Kaiser. Consider, however, that Gleason Archer was a Professor of Biblical Languages at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California from 1948 to 1965. From 1965 to 1986 he served as a Professor of Old Testament and Semitics at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois. These are, or at least were at the time, evangelical institutions. Such institutions would not likely have been considered, by James Barr, as “world-class universities”. In fact, Barr would not have likely considered evangelical scholars “world-class” scholars to begin with.

In short, Barr’s statement is meant to reflect the opinion of secular scholars of Hebrew at world-class institutions would do or did not share the bias of evangelical scholars to preserve some sort of intended insight or Divine inspiration for the author(s) of the Genesis narrative.

The only reason I can see why you yourself do not wish to give Barr’s statement any real weight is because his statement directly undermines your own position on this topic – a position that attempts to attribute Divine inspiration to Genesis while not accepting the clear reading of the text as being literally true. Otherwise, I think Barr’s statement would indeed carry a great deal of weight with most people considering this topic with a candid mind – especially since Barr himself rejected the validity of the literal creation week and the world-wide Noachian Flood. He even rejected the notion that Genesis was necessarily Divinely inspired. Given such a position, then, it is very interesting that most Hebrew scholars who take such a mindset (secular scholars) accept the idea that the whoever wrote the Genesis narrative intended to convey to his readers a literal historical narrative of real events. He just got is facts wrong is all and presented a false story. That is quite different than your suggestion that the author of Genesis was actually inspired by God, but never intended to be taken as writing a truly literal historical account of origins.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean Pitman Also Commented

SDA Darwinians compromise key church doctrines
@Professor Kent:

Totally agreed…even though they reject a literal 6-day creation 6,000 years ago. Fancy that.

Fancy that. Knowledge, by itself, doesn’t save. The motive of selfless love is what saves. Yet, knowledge has the power to provide one with a solid hope of bright future in this life, making this life more tolerable and giving us a closer and more intimate walk with God here and now. It also has the power to quicken the conscience and in this way has an indirect role in contributing to our salvation.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


SDA Darwinians compromise key church doctrines
@Professor Kent:

I ask, yet again, what do you do with the evaluation of the former Education Director for the Adventist World Church, Humberto Rasi, of Dr. Davidon’s paper?

“This paper [by Dr. Davidson] does not deal with the issue of epistemology (i.e., how we come to believe, and in particular, how we come to accept the authority of Scripture); in the pages that follow we assume the acceptance of the Bible as the Word of God. Within this presupposition of faith, the question that occupies our attention is the issue of biblical hermeutics, i.e., how to properly interpret the text”.

http://www.andrews.edu/~davidson/Publications/Hermeneutics,%20Biblical/Bible%20&%20Hermeneutics.pdf

Further repetitions of your very same argument without even addressing the counters presented to you will not be posted in this forum…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


SDA Darwinians compromise key church doctrines
@Professor Kent:

There are many different voices claiming to be “God’s” voice. Picking out the true voice of God must be based on understood empirical evidence if it is to be rationally convincing to the intelligent candid mind.

This is why only God can tell if one has honestly considered the evidence that was made available to him/her – to include those who take on the “atheist” position. Salvation isn’t based on a correct understanding of the empirical evidence, but on a love of or a desire to have a correct understanding.

Because of this, I dare say that it is quite likely that more than a few “atheists” will find themselves in Heaven someday…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


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.