"The Buddha, in a commonsense way that has made his philosophy attractive to millions, asked, “What use would it be to have the beginnings of things revealed?”
Why is the oldest creation story recorded in Gen 2 always ignored? All the interest is on the day-by-day accounts, but the story in Gen. 2 cannot be harmonized with Gen. 1. Adam was God’s first creative act in the older account, while in the one in Gen. 1 Adam is the last created.
About the “well-known” SdA Creationist, Doug Bachelor, who gives lectures on creation: he is a high school dropout; earned a GED as a 50 year old, and has absolutely no scientific education (also barely any knowledge). The "doctorates to which he refers are honorary for SdA colleges (who cannot offer legitimate doctorates) and an honorary high school diploma from Monoterey Bay Academy, all SdA schools.
It is sad to know that so many Adventists have totally accepted his version which comes from a very uneducated scientific background. As long as it panders to their beliefs, he will have an audience.
I don’t have a very scientific background, but I sense the strong evidence for a much longer age of the earth and universe, and don’t believe that God would ever create an illusion to fool us. I had never heard the idea of the Garden of Eden being a special creation - that makes some sense to me, because of the question of Cain traveling to another country to find a wife, and the fact that archaeologists have found more and more primitive societies the farther back they go - and no evidence yet of a superior race.
At any rate, I prefer to look for the spiritual lessons in Genesis, and keep up with the discoveries of science, too. I don’t think a perfect understanding of how creation was accomplished is necessary for our salvation or for our understanding of the blessing of the Sabbath. I have long felt that the Adventist Sabbath has been too much on the legalistic side. I am content to wait for heaven to learn from God himself how he did it!
Wasn’t there a priest who in 600 BC wrote a preamble and placed it ahead of the original creation story? The preamble came to be known as Genesis 1 while the original creation story was relegated to Genesis 2. The priest’s intent was never to write a “literal story” anyway but to introduce a God. But that is not the problem, the problem begins when individuals need a literal story to anchor their anxiety, thus the confusion. There is no end in sight because the problem lies within ourselves, not within the concreteness of the narratives. We don’t need to change the bible as much as the need for a couch for long term therapy.
Or 1M years. Or 1B years.
This idea of plan reading of scripture is most concerning. There is little chance anyone can understand the original intent and meaning of much of the bible without very careful study of the history, culture, language, and the sources of scripture.
You have actually stumbled onto one of the main problems, that being the tendency to use EGW in idolatrous ways. Until Adventists face this threshold issue, the potential damage from the current track is incalculable.
from what i’ve seen, there’s no real evidence that the earth isn’t a few thousand years old…the methods that supposedly prove millions and billions of years are all based on assumptions, none of which can be proved or disproved…
Can’t help wondering why Malta until it dawned on me that is has one of the most efficient and productive mental health centers in EU. I heard the clinic is recruiting a psychologist from the La Sierra/Riverside area
where does one start in the search for Truth? Anyone born with a rational mind begins with introspection. what he/she finds is to horrible to share, even in a confessional. Many find the resolution in the Gospel of Grace. having found the fulfillment in the Christ event then one must examine the Why.s. That leads to both the origin of man, and his fall. The issue of when becomes immaterial. Neither science nor speculation can answer that burning question. what we have is the written testimony of the likes of John, Paul, David, Moses, and the writer to the Hebrews in Rome. In cosmic time quite recent. God in a his Grace gives accountable “man” three score and ten to come to a conclusion on formation and destiny. as for me and my house, we place our trust in the Christ event. The rest is like trying to read a Chinese menu. Tom Z
I totally agree with you, Chuck, that the man in the pew does not generally agree with your very vocal assertions. By the way, who should abandon arrogance?
I believe that the clergy of our church who teach Creation as described in the Bible and those such a Ariel Roth, an eminent scientist, who likewise shows a positive side of Creation, DESERVE OUR RESPECT as well. SDA scientists who adhere to the teachings of Scripture and the SDA church are definitely not marginalized. Just ask them.
Who has caved in to modern concepts which are not congruent with Biblical teachings? Whose assertions are profoundly speculative really? Is it honorable for so-called scientists who do not agree with the SDA church teachings on the beginnings to draw a salary from that entity? We need honesty all around.
In The Grip of Truth
I don’t view a piece of evidence that is compatible with two contradictory claims as supporting either claim.
Without this filter one could argue that the fact that I just tossed a head with a coin supports YLC, because it is compatible with it.
Citing these references does not change the fact that she was following the best information available at the time based on Ussher’s now discredited genealogy. It’s not even “biblical” since the Septuagint chronology does not harmonize with the Masoretic text. Willie White was asked point-blank how seriously the number 6,000 should be treated. His response was: Mother is using the date most Christian thinkers accept. She is not an expert on the age of the earth. When I say “casual” I am referring to all our tendencies to throw out numbers that are “in the air” of the culture. Again, check with the White estate on this. Willie White’s comment was published in a compilation they produced some years ago about her ministry.
It doesn’t really bother me how uneducated he is. Education doesn’t necessarily mean an individual is intelligent. Some of the people I respect the most for their knowledge, attitude and skill only had a very basic school education. I won’t fall into the “it must be right because a PhD said it” crowd.
No matter what he provided, you would find a way to explain it away. Over the past several years you’ve rejected everything that has been offered as evidence. I don’t think anything short of a divinely inspired vision, could convince you otherwise. The evidence is all around you, but you are blind to it.
I agree with you, pago, but fossils can form quite rapidly, and there are some fossils that were probably formed after the flood. If petrification is considered to be a type of fossilization, that can occur in a matter of months, as if evidenced by various items found in mines (hats, wood, and so on) that have petrified.
Apparently here at Spectrum, only those findings which appear to support the evolutionary myth may be considered “scientific.”
Right on! Except that I would have put the word “knowledge” in quotation marks. Of course it will never harmonize, because the junk that passes for science in the realm of evolution doesn’t pass the smell test, never mind the scientific method.
Down not Up
Insightful … Dr Sanford’s Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome is an impressive account of science by an impressively accomplished scientist.