Creationism: Beguiled by Story

In a book published a number of years ago titled, The Power of Story, Jim Loehr explores the uniquely human trait of operating within the framework of “story.” It is “story” that assists in making sense of chaos and in organizing experiences into a comprehensible matrix of understanding. Some of the varied expression of these narratives that evolve can be represented by overarching themes—victimhood, impoverishment, failure, empowerment, privilege, success, limitations or freedom. These and many other scripts act as the master background account that explains the world to self, acting as a filter that delivers to the individual a framework of understanding.

The stories we tell about ourselves, to ourselves, begin at birth and are shaped by parents, teachers, and peers who instill a sense of time, place and history, as well as faith, fears and hopes. These inputs all influence personal identity, and form the basis for the scripts that are adopted with them being in a constant state of evolution as daily inputs get incorporated into the narrative. One of Loehr’s more hopeful points, though, is the proposition that we each are in control of story, and can modify it to alter the trajectory and transform destiny—more about this later.

As human observers, it is possible to see story weave its way into human institutions. Judaism is centered in story, as is Christianity. It also drives Adventism, and includes such things as the Great Disappointment, Investigative Judgment, Cosmic Conflict, and Time of Trouble. Also, not to be forgotten is the Adventist story of a recent creation. These all convey something about who Adventists are and the lens through which the world is viewed. By most measures it would seem that the Church has excelled at story, with perhaps the centerpiece of it all being the spiritual gifts of Ellen White who has had a compelling influence that hovers to this day in the background of Church life and doctrine. The Adventist story could not be told without a discussion of her ministry and its immense impact on the Adventist master narrative.

Many of us, having been reared on the Adventist story, have lived with the belief that the Spirit of Prophecy afforded access to the modern voice of God on earth. Even though few would make the argument for inerrancy on explicit terms, in practice it has been a little more complicated. Perhaps, even for some of us, it has been a gaze upon an idolatrous pedestal. From that framework it has been clear that earth, and life on it, was about 6,000 years old with no possibility that science could be right. In important ways this gaze has conceivably given permission to ignore all the pieces of scientific evidence that suggested a far different narrative.

In spite of this history, “time” has allowed a more human prophet to emerge, first with the transcript from the 1919 Bible Conference in which White’s contemporaries discussed her appropriate role as they understood it, a position significantly less elevated than what would later evolve. Added to this were the subsequent revelations of literary borrowing without attribution on a fairly large scale. Such disclosures were alien to the underlying assumptions from which the pedestal paradigm had emerged, necessitating some to modify such conventions so as to comport with this new informational landscape. Yet, for many others of the Adventist community, the story tradition has remained too compelling for any of these more recent revelations to matter at all. This is evident from a church culture seemingly at ease in overlooking objective measures by which to know the prophet was both human and mistaken on some points.[1] Such unfiltered and non-discriminating reliance upon this part of the Adventist story has set in place the preconditions that have given rise to conflicts in the Church’s relationship with science and scientific data.

Sometime back, the Adventist Review (AR) published the Sabbath sermon from the “Faith and Science Conference” held in St. George, Utah, in the summer of 2014. The sermon was presented by a General Conference Vice President in which he told his listeners that the Adventist emphasis on a recent creation “comes from the Bible,” though he never quite showed the audience where, nor did he raise the possibility of this idea being sourced in some other way. Perhaps offering a window view into the mood of the corporate Church over the “recent creation” (RC) issue was a picture accompanying this AR article that portrayed Daniel in the lion’s den, seemingly a metaphorical depiction of a persecuted Church under assault by facts and scientists.[2] Otherwise, why have such a picture accompanying an article on faith and science?

So, what is the real source for the tensions that now exist within Adventism over the dating of creation?

The answer to this would seem to be that it appears to be largely sourced in the thinking and writings of Ellen Whitewho has given the Church two conflicting story traditions—one being her advocacy of a strictly evidence-based theology,[3] and the other being her belief in RC.[4] With San Antonio 2015 now in the rearview mirror, it is quite clear that the Church has now attempted to resolve this tension by giving RC superseding authority over “evidence-based” theology by formally canonizing a “recent creation” in a revised statement of the Fundamental Belief on creation; this in the face of both compelling and growing physical evidence to the contrary.

The great lament that some may feel about what occurred in San Antonio could perhaps be more easily accommodated if the probability equation—both for and against RC—were a 50/50 proposition. But as a reality check we must face squarely the gnawing poverty of subject-matter experts in the key sciences who believe the evidence even remotely points towards RC. Even the Church’s own prominent scientist from Geoscience Research Institute candidly admitted a while back, “There are no available [scientific] models” for a recent creation.[5]Nevertheless, it would appear that to many leading Adventist minds a “recent creation” story coming from an inerrant prophet has been too much of a certainty to deem evidence worthy of a full and fair hearing—perhaps forgetting that Ellen White emphatically embraced an evidentiary basis for faith and practice.

The alternative to the path outlined above would be to start taking God endowed “sense” and “reason” seriously as it applies to His“book of nature.” When we observe in real time the birthing of new stars and solar systems in distant nebula we must now recognize that “In the beginning” must be understood as a relative term at least as we move forward from the big-bang cosmology. When we see stars at billions of light-years away, we have compelling evidence that those stars existed billions of years ago, otherwise we would not see their light. On both of these counts it is difficult to claim a literal understanding for a singular recent creation of the stars within the framework of Day 4 from a few thousand years ago. Nor can the many other pieces of compelling evidence aid the traditional version of the creation story.

The quiet forbearance against formal implementation of RC dogma that marked the first 150 years of Adventism has now been displaced by what appears to be a wholesale dismissal of the physical evidence, incubated in a subculture in which the RC version of story has simply been too sacrosanct, and driven by Adventists too certain about the details of RC to consider the array of evidence honestly and objectively.

Michael Lewis, in his most recent book, The Undoing Project provides an account of two Israeli psychologists—Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky—who spent their lives studying the mechanics of human thinking. One of their many conclusions was that “story” hasthe capacity to blind people to more compelling understandings of reality. In other words, this is not just an Adventist problem—it is a human problem.

But lest this all lead to despair, it is worth circling back to the beginning of this piece which offers the possibility of hope, holding out the prospect that humans ultimately control story, having the power to modify both it and its trajectory by way of an editing process that should have as its intent to keep it in touch with the real world. Perhaps one of the best ways to undertake an editing project would be to move the focus from the substance of belief, to the process itself.After all, belief is only credible to the extent that the process that gets us there is credible.

Given what took place in San Antonio, we cannot assume the current Church hierarchy has any interest in an editing program at this time. For them, and perhaps for most members, it is likely that the complexities of science represents too steep a hill to climb. Perhaps for some the pedestal version seems too certain. But the march of human knowledge is ever growing in light of the continued accumulation of evidence, and it is the evidence that will be the final arbiter on such matters for most people. This reality should be the basis for sober reflection by those interested in the evangelistic future of the Church.

For a long time there existed a fork in the road in Adventism with one sign pointing towards a tradition-based confessional, the other to evidence-based principles. Informally, the Church had been camped at that fork on matters regarding RC, that is, until San Antonio when it chose to formally side with tradition. Those who are process-oriented and evidence-based can only mourn over the abandonment of this founding principle as the basis for faith and practice. Perhaps a more circumspect approach will eventually emerge with a rediscovery of this principle central to Adventism. Such a rediscovery could provide a framework upon which to construct a sound doctrine of Creation that takes both science and Scripture seriously. Until then, surely there will be the hard lessons of history that will have to be relearned.

Concluding Summary

In closing, let me summarize several key points I have attempted to articulate either directly or indirectly in this article. They are as follows:

1. All functional humans live within the framework of story. These would include the presuppositions that result in a worldview, as well as the personal narratives that we create from our interactions with others. Perhaps one of the most fundamental presuppositions is that of theism. For many Adventists, Creationism also plays a central role as story.

2. “Story” can be non-negotiable, or it can be flexible so as to be accountable to the real world of sense and reason. Accountability requires that we may need to either edit story or respect data enough to resist impulses to act counter to it. The less accountable story becomes to the real world of data, the less connected we become to reality and the more the conclusion can be drawn that “story” has become a form of idolatry.

3. Ellen White and the influence she has had on the Seventh-day Adventist Church is a part of the Adventist story. It is possible to harbor deep respect for the pivotal role she played in the formation of the Church, as well as her leadership in its overall success. Yet, there has been a long history within the Church of some elevating her thinking well above any appropriate level of authority. She was human—not infallible or inerrant—and never claimed to be, even though many have seemed to operate with such assumptions by way of action.

4. In fact, there are examples of statements in which we can objectively know that Ellen White was not always right, even on specific, “I was shown,” types of statements. Such knowledge should inform the RC “story”—particularly when it runs up against wide scientific consensus to the contrary.

5. It has been argued in this article that San Antonio’s formalizing of the Adventist Fundamental Belief for RC is symbolically distinct from the prior informal predisposition. This action, while perhaps solidifying a widely held informal consensus, violates basic epistemological principles that should have otherwise given respect to sense and reason as a sufficient basis for rejecting this formalizing step.

6. There was an alternative course—to have simply maintained the prior informal tradition for RC. Given the weight of evidence that runs counter to the RC tradition, there is, in fact, a great deal of wisdom to be found in walking back the San Antonio action by allowing the evidence to continue to accumulate. After all, that position served the Church for its entire prior history.

7. Eventually the appropriate way forward may have become clearer to the Church, making it more comfortable to take a position faithful to evidence (as Ellen White always recommended). This latter suggestion would certainly have conveyed greater respect for the Adventist commitment to seek truth.

8. While mentioned only tangentially in the article above, there hovers in the background a concern for the lessons of history; that to ignore physical evidence can come at a very steep cost.

9. With this in mind, it would seem that we should be facing squarely and publically the physical evidence seemingly contrary to the Adventist traditional understanding, finding wisdom in attempting to harmonize physical evidence and revelation. There are many Christians who are working on such issues, and just perhaps, Adventists could contribute constructively to such endeavors.

10. One finally thought, in the midst of what for some is theological certitude on these matters, it is perhaps worth remembering that ambiguity remains as a fundamental part of the sacred paradigm. With this in mind, perhaps it would be worth viewing “physical evidence” on friendlier terms, offering the potential of guidance in the framing of our “traditions” and “stories” in a way that keeps us accountable. It will require dexterity, but it is possible to maintain a respectful attitude towards our traditional understandings, while at the same time working towards keeping them in touch with the real world.

Notes & References:

[1]See Ellen G. White, Vol. 1 Testimonies p. 131-132 as one small example of the point made. Here White details out the content of a vision in which she saw a Church conference she had attended. Quoting her attending angel, she says she was “shown” that some attending the conference would die before the return of Jesus, while others would be alive. The date of this conference was 1856.

3Regarding “evidence,” it is worth noting that while some Adventists would likely argue that a “recent creation” comes from the Bible—specifically by way of chronology—there are many, and perhaps most, Adventist biblical scholars who do not regard this as a reliable method. As one example, see It is also worth noting that many conservative Evangelicals who take Scripture seriously, remain open to the apparent message emanating from the physical evidences of nature. As for Ellen Whites attitude toward an evidence-based faith, see, for example, Ed. 128; see also CWE, 33-42; 44. At this latter page citation, White states: “If the pillars of our faith will not stand the test of investigation, it is time that we knew it. There must be no spirit of pharisaism cherished among us...we are to exercise the ability God has given us to learn what is truth.”

[4]It must be remembered that even in 1900 there was quite a bit of evidence for an ancient earth and universe, but far, far less than what exists today. It would probably be appropriate to give allowance as to Ellen White’s lack of formal education for some of her thinking re RC, but should such generosity be extended to 21st century, educated Adventists who have the capacity to know better? As an example of RC from Ellen G. White, see Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 3 (1864), pp. 91-92.


Jan M. Long is the recently published author of the book titled: When Religious Faith Collides with Science: A Navigational Guide, published by Wipf & Stock Publishers. The book is available on Amazon and from other major book retailers. You can also follow him on Twitter at: @JanLong1

Image Credit: / Miriam Espacio

If you respond to this article, please:

Make sure your comments are germane to the topic; be concise in your reply; demonstrate respect for people and ideas whether you agree or disagree with them; and limit yourself to one comment per article, unless the author of the article directly engages you in further conversation. Comments that meet these criteria are welcome on the Spectrum Website. Comments that fail to meet these criteria will be removed.

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at

Perhaps ALL we have to go on is a typical statement like this from Psalm 124 verse 8.
"Our help is from the Lord, who made heaven and earth."
Or, Psalm 121 verse 2.
"My help is from the Lord, who made heaven and earth."
Psalm 19 –
Enjoy the totality of God’s creation.
And THAT IS what Science offers. Enjoying the totality of God’s creation from the Hubble telescope, to bits and pieces of DNA, to the smallest particle in the atom.
It is amazing that my BODY disintegrates and rebuilds itself every 9 years – and YET I AM THE SAME. [We just have to learn to vacuum around the house more.]
And it is an estimated fact that there are more things to discover in the world than we now know – Plant life, Animal life, Aquatic life.
SO… what matter WHEN.
"My help comes from the Lord, maker of heaven and earth."
It is true that since the Flood there are traces of knowledge that Early Man understood a day of rest every 7 days. In Very OLD Chinese character writings [these people moved east from the Ark to “China”] the sound for “seven” is a house with a stick figure kneeling.
Is there anything like that in cuniform writings, about every 7days, REST? Haven’t run into anything, but may be out there.
When God talked about Sabbath in Exodus, it seems to indicate that it was not necessarily a NEW THING, or CONCEPT. Just lost because of their servitude under the Egyptians.


I just can’t understand why someone would doubt the Bible based on science so called. In my opinion, what men and women are really saying is that the God of heaven is limited to the physical laws discovered and defined by their physical or scientific observation. Thus, they have essentially placed themselves on an equality with God. Some might say, however, I resent that statement and this isn’t true. Well my response would be, than stop trying to explain God, or when and how God created things through scientific observations, and just accept what He said through His servant Moses. God is bigger than us, stronger than us, wiser than us, and just because our science may even seem to supposedly suggest that the world is billions of years old doesn’t make that narrative true. First of all, the Bible suggests that when God created man, He created him as an adult, so then why couldn’t He also create rocks and trees that were “fully grown.” It stands to reason that God didn’t say let there be tree seeds, but He created fully grown trees that would bear seeds. Thus, scientists studying those trees or rocks could easily have come to the false conclusion from their limited scientific knowledge that the earth was older than it actually was.

Secondly, it is a well known fact that there are things in nature that science can still NOT explain. Astronomers still can’t explain the dark matter that makes up most of space, nor can they truly understand or even see wind. In fact, science really has no accurate understanding of how a ball called the sun continues to burn without burning up, nor do they really have any idea where the fire came from.
Thus, I refer back to the original thought. If science can’t even explain everything in nature than what makes finite beings think they can explain an infinite God or how He created world. Why not simply accept what He said He did through His servant Moses, and then bow down at His feet like Job did when he realized just how awesome God is.

Job 11:7-10 says it so eloquently, “Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection? It is as high as heaven; what canst thou do? deeper than hell; what canst thou know? The measure thereof is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea. If he cut off, and shut up, or gather together, then who can hinder Him.”

1 Like

Well, I doubt that there is a dome above us, the firmament, that holds back the waters of chaos and on which the sun, moon, and the stars are fixed. But the bible says there is.

For details, see:

Looking to the bible for scientific facts is a misuse of scripture. It is not written to explain the natural world to us, but instead the nature of God and man’s relationship to God.

This is already happening. Educated Adventists are openly questioning recent changes to the 26/27/28/ or is it 29(?) fundamental beliefs. The younger set (those under 55) are increasingly leaving because the church’s official teachings are untenable, in general and especially when it overreaches into areas of knowledge where it is clearly incompetent, such as science.

I find it interesting that the official Roman Catholic Church has a much more rational approach. They state:

"Fundamentalists often make it a test of Christian orthodoxy to believe that the world was created in six 24-hour days and that no other interpretations of Genesis 1 are possible. They claim that until recently this view of Genesis was the only acceptable one—indeed, the only one there was.

"The writings of the Fathers, who were much closer than we are in time and culture to the original audience of Genesis, show that this was not the case. There was wide variation of opinion on how long creation took. Some said only a few days; others argued for a much longer, indefinite period…

"Catholics are at liberty to believe that creation took a few days or a much longer period, according to how they see the evidence, and subject to any future judgment of the Church (Pius XII’s 1950 encyclical Humani Generis 36–37). They need not be hostile to modern cosmology. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states,
“Many scientific studies . . . have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life forms, and the appearance of man. These studies invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator.” (CCC 283). "


The page then details many quotes from early Christian leaders. My favorite is:

“It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation” (Augustine - The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20 [A.D. 408]).


I believe you have ventured too far. When we stop believing what the bible says, I would like to know on whose authority are you saying that scripture is wrong.

Gen 1 & 2 talk about a 24 hr cycle and a 7 day week.

When you do not believe in a literal creation, you no longer believe in the Sabbath. The Sabbath is a memorial to creation, where God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

Creation is part of the 1st Angels Message.

The dome around the earth was created by God on the second day & dissipated during the flood, changing earth’s climate permanently.

Now in this time in history is the time to stand up & defend the bible, we are not far from our eternal home.

At the end of the day, no one is still alive that was a eye witness to creation, but I will stake my eternal life on the account in the Bible being correct.

1 Like

Stunningly stated and articulated Jan Long!

EGW’s extensive prolific plagiarism, now emphatically documented, means that we never know which phrase/passage/paragraph/page was authentic/original with her or purloined from her contemporary authors.

When the church codifies these contemporary writers from whom she stole, as equally inspired, maybe every utterance of Ellen could then be justified as gospel truth!

Generations of Adventist adolescents were condemned by EGW for practicing "secret vice ".

Meanwhile EGW was practicing her own " secret vice " behind closed doors, by candle light, in the dead of night – embezzling not just ideas, but whole chapters of other’s intellectual property.

Her husband and sons have vehemently and vociferously denied that she ever copied, which means this practice was hidden even from her immediate family – showing that she knew it to be shameful!

Adventism appears ridiculous when we blindly follow every plagiarized pronouncement of this deeply flawed woman.

To Groucho:
You are one gullible and ignorant man, if in this twenty first century you are still seemingly unaware of EGW’S prolific and extensively documented PLAGIARISM!

To 21stcentirysda
You ask:
Why did EGW become " the center of attention "?

Because it was she— not the Bible — who paraded out the plagiarized pseudo, phony number SIX THOUSAND YEARS. This figure for the age of the earth was prevalently believed in her era, by her contemporaries,

As was her practice, she "borrowed " the idea. This does not make it factual just because she plagiarized it!

There is no text— ZERO – in the Bible specifying the lapse of time since creation.

Please provide chapter and verse if you think " six thousand years "
appears in Biblical text! That is why a "recent creation " has no biblical support!


If the false and disparaging remarks you’ve made about Ellen White, had been made about Dan Jackson or Ricardo Graham, you would have incurred the wrath of the moderators. But Ellen White and Ted Wilson seem to be fair game for all kinds of false accusations. It’s just plain sickening.

Good point, 21st century. The sad fact is that professed Christians who accept evolution and millions of years, have more faith in fallible science (so-called) than in the infallible word of God. But they bristle at the very idea of being accused as such, and will obfuscate by attempting to interpret the Bible in a way that will fit into the erroneous conclusions of false science. It doesn’t work. One of the greatest living apostles for evolution is Richard Dawkins, and even he recognizes that the Bible has no room for evolution of any kind. Pity that so many professed Christians are so blind to the fact. Guess they don’t want to be ridiculed. Jesus was ridiculed–and then murdered. Should His followers expect better treatment?

1 Like

The answer is that they like you accept evidence based medicine with its underlying assumption of the explanatory value of science. Once that happens and you have even tacitly reinterpreted Matthew 17 and the basis of physical illness you cannot logically go back and deny the value of a reinterpretation of Gen 1 and 2. The logic and cohesion are inescapable.
The most interesting thing is that we are at this position precisely because EG White in her support of JH Kellogg took the church from the water cure of the WHRI in the 1860s through to the establishment of LLMU as an accredited medical school with real doctors practising allopathic medicine in 1905.
The increasing number of Adventists literate in science who no longer question the need to reinterpret Gen 1,2 are doing no more than continuing the tradition that EG White herself set in train.
Praise the lord for her insight and realism.

I would entirely agree. As a Christian who accept the apostolic creed one cannot do other than accept the account in the bible as being correct and the truth but that does not mean one cannot argue about whether the narrative is factual or not.

Again you are foundering on a concatenation between Truth and Fact. It comes down to what you expect of holy scripture. Do you expect the spirit of God to inspire the writing of a text which would address all questions that would be asked more than 2000 years later? We do not look at the Bible to find answers to questions of quantum physics, information technology or cosmology why do we expect the Bible to have answers on much more complex issues of biology. It comes back to my original premise. Do you really expect because of a plain reading of Matthew 17 to rely on prayer and fasting to fix a critical stenosis of your left main coronary artery or will you accept that we have developed over the last 2000 years some objective knowledge of biological reality and the intervention of a coronary artery stent that will save your life. The bible is about salvation and our relationship with God to expect it to be a textbook of science for all time is to impose on it a burden it cannot bear.


Robin, I respectfully disagree with your characterization of EGW’s use of “6000 years” as plagiarism. 6000 years was widely accepted by her peers as the age of the earth, as you noted. She wrote that numerous times, but not via the process of plagiarism. Rather, she was simply writing within the context of the chronological paradigm of her time and culture.

To illustrate: Suppose I write that masses attract each other via gravity, such that if you drop an object from the Empire State Building, it will go down, not up or sideways, and furthermore, that the gravitational force acting on an object is equal to its mass times an acceleration constant, g. Am I plagiarizing Newton? No. I am using a principle of physics accepted and recognized in my society today. Whether I acknowledge Newton’s contributions or not, I am not plagiarizing. Rather like trademarks that pass into the public domain, using and stating widely held principles is not plagiarism.

The more interesting question to me is, Should the church view EGW’s many statements of 6000 years as inspired chronological statements, or as reflections of the paradigm of the time? I vote for the latter.


HEAVY!!! Thanks for these Revelations. The Bible BOTH the Judaic and the Christian is a HARD compilation to read and understand, especially if one is without the so-called rerlevant keys to interpretation or pesher. Even with some idea of interpretation, no one can be certain that their supposed KEY is correct andc relevant to the passasges which may be questioned. The most that I can do is question (to myself, in the first instance, and perhaps subsequently raise to ,my wife, who 99 times out of a hundred will stck to the SDA/ GC/ EGW line of interpretation. If I PRESS her too hard , which I do sometimes, I better do it on a warm night in summer when I can do without body warmth(smile). Still she has begun to read my book and I notice some covert questioning glances beneath the eyelids which she thinks I am not aware of. I do not support a young earth belief nor a six-day creation week. I believe both almighty God and the snake of Eden helped mankind to develop. The snake was of course not a real snake but a symbol of the medical arts(or science, if you will)), that is the Caduseus -two entwined snakes around a pole with wiglets on top of the pole. That is the double helix DNA with the right and left hemispheres of the brain at the top. When God decided to create mankind her issued the command to do so and the snake was put in charge of the operations team. He was assisted by his half sister Ninhursag or MAMI and they started work in the Rift valley, according to the old Atra Hasis and Enuma Elisha texts. The olden Sumerians claim that they were taught directly by members of the Elohim who had offices on the to[ floors of their ziggurats. These were then known as the “House of God”, and the instruction " The Word of God". One thing to observe is that we surmise the creation of ,man was a biological process because of this . Notwithstanding that our Pastors consign our bodies to the grave in funerary rites with the term “ashes to ashes and dcust to dust” man was NOT made from clay or dust. The Akkadian word for clay was TI.IT, laqter shortened to TIT. In H(ebrewe TIT means mud, bjut it has a synonym ‘BOS’ which shares a root withBISA( marsh) and BESA (egg). This of course suggests that the word “clay” far from suggesting death can be referring to processes involving new life. But , the snake and his team seemed gto be taking too long on the creation of “intelligent man” project. They tried to develop an intelligent creature from then existing earth animals, but came up with gargoyles with two heads, some with the head of one animal and body of another like a sphinx, and so on. God called them in and gave the order " Let us make man in our own image after our likeness…"This was done by fertlising the eggs of Near-man animal Homo erectus Homo erectus with the sperm of an Eloha named Gestu. His blood wass also used in the process for reasons of wnhich we are not aware. Man was rherefore “washed with the blood” of an Eloha, and MAMI was the midwife , so to speak. To this day we call our mothers MAMA in her honour. So EGW was right to say man was created from an animal, but where she stumbled was to infer that only Blacks were so created. ALL intelligent humans are descended from these creation events.

I would recommend the book “Counting to God” by Douglas Ell.

Mr Ell is an attorney, mathematician, and physicist.

It is a very interesting book on how CURRENT science points toward a creator rather convincingly.