When Worlds collide...Is it all or nothing

[RC_NewProtestants]

An interesting thing happened at the Sabbath School class I attend. Our regular teachers were not there so the teacher of another class led both classes. I don’t know who was from her class or who the visitors to our class were. One younger man made a comment about not taking the days of the Genesis creation account as literal. Now it was not me bringing this up, but I did point out that they were called days even before there was any way to define a day, e.g. no sun so that it is reasonable to question what day meant.

A little later after the teacher had given her view that we should be interpreting the Bible through what we know of Jesus Christ another man, I don’t recall him ever at our class before but I have seen him around the church a lot so I know he is a regular member, said in effect if you don’t believe in the literal days of creation in the Genesis story you can’t believe in the literal life, death and resurrection of Christ. I think if we had had our regular class teachers we would have examined that statement but we didn’t and most of the people there were not regular members of our class so I have no idea where they stood on interpreting the Bible. So I like everyone else let his statement stand.

What bothers me most about this is the way that such antagonism exists between people in the Adventist church. Here was someone who because he can’t conceive of any other way of interpreting the Genesis story has determined that if you don’t view the story the way he does, you can’t believe in Jesus Christ. Yes this is a common statement that I have heard fundamentalists use but it has never made sense. It is rather like saying that if you don’t see Satan as the serpent then you can’t see Jesus as the Savior. Yet it was not until near the end of the first century that Satan was compared to the serpent of old. Israel did not see the serpent as Satan, the New Testament church through at least most of it’s time did not have to see Satan as the serpent yet they were very capable of seeing Jesus Christ as the Savior. Just because someone equates something to something else does not make the equation valid.

Somehow the Traditional Seventh- day Adventist (TSDA) equates the Genesis account that was even by their estimation was written 1500 years after any of the events recorded. Written to a people coming out of slavery in a very primitive world and introducing a concept of One God instead of many gods. Requiring that it must be viewed as historically accurate as the New Testament all of which was written within 100 years of the events recorded and most of the accounts taken from witnesses. Though we don’t know who wrote most of the gospels we do know that the gospel now called Luke attributes it sources to witnesses and even the more liberal scholars will acknowledge that John’s disciples probably wrote the book of John.

There is this tremendous difference in the material that records the life of Christ and that that records the Creation of the world to which there was no witnesses. So why is it so important for the Traditionalist to demand that one particular view of the Creation must be accepted or you cannot accept the historicity of Jesus Christ?

The answer I think is found in the culture within the Adventist church, probably a similar culture is found in other fundamentalist churches but here I deal with Adventism. That culture has been to declare our beliefs to be true whether they can be shown to be true or not, whether they can be shown to be derived from the Bible or not. Because the culture inside the church makes these claims and indoctrinates them through the Lesson Study Guides and the Sermons people begin to make assumptions that call anything else a deception. In fact on the same day as the above incident the Pastor began his sermon by telling the congregation that all the other views of eschatology are deceptions. Armageddon is a deception, a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem is a deception and of course the rapture is a deception. In general unless it is from the SDA churches expectations of end times everything else is a deception. I am sure that there are people in other churches who will say that the Adventist view of eschatology is also a deception but how can one make predictions about what is to come and call other predictions about what is to come a deception. None of the groups has any evidence that the other is wrong or they are right or what is going to happen one way or the other. So to say that it is a deception is actually a deception. All these different groups are trying to interpret the Bible verses to make sense of the different Bible passages. Personally I don’t think we have any ability to predict either the end time events here on earth or what is to happen after the second coming. We have a common history of being wrong when making predictions even with all the information the Bible gives. And the modern prophets have been equally wrong.

The point here is that there is a culture that defines the church as completely right and others, outside the denomination or the denominations norms as completely wrong. This translates into a restricted view when discussion groups meet. It translates into an all or nothing view, either you agree with my traditional views or you can’t be a Christian. I can only imagine how the young man felt after the traditional Adventist asserted that the younger man could not believe in a literal Jesus Christ. Will he ever come back to our church? In some ways I think many traditional Adventists would rather he did not come back, they don’t want people in the church who according to the TSDA’s view are compromising with Satan to destroy the Adventist church. Yet I and no doubt other Progressive SDA’s welcome other Christian views into the Adventist church. We don’t have all the truth and we most definitely have wrong interpretations, why then pretend we have a corner on the truth? As a church shouldn’t we actually be trying to grow in understanding? Can we really grow if we merely assume our traditional views are all there is? We must change the culture within our Adventist churches, faith and reason must exist together if we expect to fulfill the great commission.

[RC_NewProtestants]

I have been listening to the Good News Tour 2006 talks found on the HeavenlySanctuary.com (http://www.heavenlysanctuary.com/filemgmt/viewcat.php?cid=21) website. I am probably a little more then half way through and will offer some analysis in the near future. For now I would like to recommend people listen to Alden Thompson's talk entitled Jesus Solves All The Problems in The Bible (http://www.heavenlysanctuary.com/filemgmt/visit.php?lid=185)

The title of course is a bit facetious but it is well worth listening to as it relates quite well with the quarter's Sabbath School Lessons on the Bible. what I like about Thompson is that he does not take verses out of context the way most of the other speakers at the conference do.

[JonMiller]

I think that a lot of (young) adventists quit attending church because they disgree with the church leadership on (what I think are) unimportant issues, like alcohol or jewelery. Generally, stopping to attend church isn't good for their spiritual lives.

JM

[StormyOne]

thanks for sharing RC... the ongoing problem for some adventists steeped in tradition and refusing to let go is that they believe God did not really bless us with a brain... and that somehow we must suspend our brain functioning to "believe" in God... Likewise many believe that the bible is the infallible word of God.... that is a recipe for foolishness, craziness or both...

[Mankin]

Thanks for sharing RC. I agree with you. The traditional view is that you are not a real Christian if you don't agree with them. The Bible can be interpreted in many different ways.

[Sophia7]

Yet I and no doubt other Progressive SDA’s welcome other Christian views into the Adventist church. We don’t have all the truth and we most definitely have wrong interpretations, why then pretend we have a corner on the truth? As a church shouldn’t we actually be trying to grow in understanding? Can we really grow if we merely assume our traditional views are all there is? We must change the culture within our Adventist churches, faith and reason must exist together if we expect to fulfill the great commission.

Yes, and shouldn't we be spending less time trying to convince other Christians that they have been deceived about certain doctrines and more time trying to spread the gospel to those who don't know Christ at all?

I've been discouraged lately because our local churches in particular are primarily concerned with evangelizing our own members, but they have no desire to reach out to the unchurched. And the sad thing is that even when non-Christians do visit, they are met with condemnation because they smoke, drink, live with their girlfriends/boyfriends outside of marriage, etc.

[JonMiller]

This is an issue which I have a real problem with. It seems like many adventists feel like church is for those who are perfect (or close to it). If they are so perfect, they don't need church. Church is for sinners.

JM

[Mankin]

This is an issue which I have a real problem with. It seems like many adventists feel like church is for those who are perfect (or close to it). If they are so perfect, they don't need church. Church is for sinners.

JM

:amen: As Jesus once said, "It is the sick who need the docter not the healthy." I am not sure if I got that verse exactly right, but that is the general statment.

[StormyOne]

:amen: As Jesus once said, "It is the sick who need the docter not the healthy." I am not sure if I got that verse exactly right, but that is the general statment.
very true.... how quickly that statement is forgotten...

[RC_NewProtestants]

Yes, and shouldn't we be spending less time trying to convince other Christians that they have been deceived about certain doctrines and more time trying to spread the gospel to those who don't know Christ at all?

I've been discouraged lately because our local churches in particular are primarily concerned with evangelizing our own members, but they have no desire to reach out to the unchurched. And the sad thing is that even when non-Christians do visit, they are met with condemnation because they smoke, drink, live with their girlfriends/boyfriends outside of marriage, etc.

My opinion is that before we can really adequately evangelize we have to establish a healthy local church to evangelize people into. Which is sort of the reason behind my series of blog articles on sermons.
Sermons, Training Ground of the Passive Church (http://cafesda.blogspot.com/2007/02/sermons-training-ground-of-passive.html)
Sermons Part 2, The Local Church in the Postmodern World (http://cafesda.blogspot.com/2007/02/sermons-part-2-local-church-in.html)

Your local church is the foundation of acceptance and interaction with other believers. It is where you should want to bring your friends of acquaintances so that they can become friends with other people and through the process of friendship spread the love of God. If the church is condemning of other Christians, if they won't tolerate different legitimate interpretational differences they will only turn people off of both Adventism and Christianity.

So I sympathize with your church to evangelize your own church first. It is the logical first step. Unfortunately we are not evangelizing as much as indoctrinating to one specific and frankly often distorted view of Christianity. In short we don't do church right, at least not right for our time and culture, it may have once been right but we need something else today. We need to generate a friendship network in the church and from the church it will reach out to the many varied methods of outreach that the group of friends feel most comfortable with.

Right now we are in the birth pains of changing the church and it is very uncomfortable.

[Sophia7]

My opinion is that before we can really adequately evangelize we have to establish a healthy local church to evangelize people into. Which is sort of the reason behind my series of blog articles on sermons.
Sermons, Training Ground of the Passive Church (http://cafesda.blogspot.com/2007/02/sermons-training-ground-of-passive.html)
Sermons Part 2, The Local Church in the Postmodern World (http://cafesda.blogspot.com/2007/02/sermons-part-2-local-church-in.html)

Your local church is the foundation of acceptance and interaction with other believers. It is where you should want to bring your friends of acquaintances so that they can become friends with other people and through the process of friendship spread the love of God. If the church is condemning of other Christians, if they won't tolerate different legitimate interpretational differences they will only turn people off of both Adventism and Christianity.

So I sympathize with your church to evangelize your own church first. It is the logical first step. Unfortunately we are not evangelizing as much as indoctrinating to one specific and frankly often distorted view of Christianity. In short we don't do church right, at least not right for our time and culture, it may have once been right but we need something else today. We need to generate a friendship network in the church and from the church it will reach out to the many varied methods of outreach that the group of friends feel most comfortable with.

Right now we are in the birth pains of changing the church and it is very uncomfortable.

I agree, and that's part of what is so discouraging. It's such a slow process, and sometimes it's hard to tell if we are making any progress. Thanks for the links.

[RC_NewProtestants]

It is a very slow process but it is not only the Adventist church that has to retrain itself it is all of Christianity. The church builds itself on tradition then builds upon more tradition and just like the Reformation tore done some traditions we have to continually reform the Christian church as well as the Adventist church.

Even as people try to excavate a new foundation there are others diggin straight down hence the quote from C.S. Lewis which is my motto for NewProtestants.com
“We all want progress. But progress means getting nearer to the place where you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turn, then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man. . .There is nothing progressive about being pigheaded and refusing to admit a mistake." C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: Macmillan, 1952), Book I, Chap. 5, p. 22.

[Sophia7]

Great quote.

[DrStupid_Ben]

Good thread RC. I too have come across that restrictive traditional view. It usually makes me not want to contribute to discussions when people make statements like that. You would be interested to read some of the dialogue between Charles Scriven and Roy Gane in Spectrum over the past few issues on the subject of Biblical authority.

It's interesting that a church that started off as a progressive movement, reforming doctrine, is now a conservative movement, not letting go of traditional dogma.

[Sophia7]

Good thread RC. I too have come across that restrictive traditional view. It usually makes me not want to contribute to discussions when people make statements like that. You would be interested to read some of the dialogue between Charles Scriven and Roy Gane in Spectrum over the past few issues on the subject of Biblical authority.

It's interesting that a church that started off as a progressive movement, reforming doctrine, is now a conservative movement, not letting go of traditional dogma.

And anyone who questions traditional Adventist dogma (like the IJ or the authority of EGW) is accused of putting himself or herself in danger of rejecting the Bible and becoming an atheist. (Such accusations have been made in my husband's "Adventist Pastor" thread.) What kind of Protestantism is that? I do take a more literal view of the Genesis account than RC, but to make the illogical leap, as the guy in his SS class did, that anyone who doesn't believe in a literal seven-day creation week can't really believe in Jesus is just ridiculous. As far as I'm concerned, there is room for both Traditionals and Progressives (and anyone else who may not be covered under those labels) in the church. We can all learn by discussing things with each other, even if we end up still disagreeing.

Unfortunately, where I live there is not much tolerance for views that diverge from tradition. I feel very uncomfortable going to Sabbath School anymore because I can't be open about my beliefs. If my husband weren't a pastor, I wouldn't care so much, but as it is I feel a little trapped because I have to go along with certain traditions even though I think they are just unnecessary burdens.

[icedragon101]

I think the solution here is to start a new chruch.

RC I am not friend of the TSDA I am an evanglical SDA and proud of it, but I have to ask the question What do you believe about creation. I have heard you express your views before and I found them to be odd and out of place, but can't remember what they are. could you explain What and Why?

[RC_NewProtestants]

I think the solution here is to start a new chruch.

RC I am not friend of the TSDA I am an evanglical SDA and proud of it, but I have to ask the question What do you believe about creation. I have heard you express your views before and I found them to be odd and out of place, but can't remember what they are. could you explain What and Why?

I don't know that there is anything odd about it, I don't know how creation occurred but I do know that the evidence around us does not go along with a six literal days of creation. In other words the ice cores and the fossil record don't show an age that is as young as an literal Genesis account e.g. it's genealogies would give us. Ussher's famous 6000 years. I can also tell that the story is laid out in the same way as the other creation myths throughout the world. Chaos brought by God into order. That is what water is nearly universally symbolic for. Of course there would be no liquid water on a planet without a sun and without an atmosphere. If the water was to be present it would be in the form of ice. Of course a primitive people would have no concept of a world covered in ice, it is doubtful they would have even known what a Glacier was. Remember the Genesis story was written after the Exodus from Egypt and it was written for a people who knew very little.

Even today we don't have a clue as to what the Genesis account that we claim is literal is saying. the first day light is created and it separates day from night, yet it is not until the 4th day that the sun and the moon (greater and lesser lights) are created. Yet it is the sun that defines a day on earth. So the days of the prior 4 are defined by something we have know idea about. You can see the method is a good step by step account that concludes with everything we see today but it does not account for things that modern scientifically knowledgeable people see. Even the lesson study on Genesis recently said we would have to wait to ask God what He meant by the creation of the stars on day 4. Because the light that we see today from stars Billions of light years away certainly indicates that they were created before the earth. So many Christians accept that the earth was created Billions of years ago and remained void till creation week, but that does not really help them because the stars according to a literal reading are created on day 4. Even plants which are nearly totally dependent upon the sun are in the literal story created before the sun.

Then there is the question of why do we take a story as only literal history when it nowhere makes such claims for the story itself. In fact there is no record of attribution even for who wrote the book of Genesis (and textual criticism by most scholars indicate it was made by several stories put together and then further redaction). The assumption that it was all historical can be accepted by a primitive people with limited knowledge but is that always the way the story is to be understood?

The point of the story is that God created not so much how God created.

[DrStupid_Ben]

I mean no disrespect Icedragon, but starting a new church like that will do no good in my opinion.

I know that you have your own concept of what "evangelical" should mean, but the evangelical community is such a mix of conservatives, neo-conservatives and post-conservatives, that I think an Evangelical Adventist Church would just disapear into obscurity.

Just out of interest, what would be your structure of this new church? A copy of the current Adventist organisation and doctrines, just without the bits you don't like? A congregationalist approach? I personally think that we don't have the best structure for a global 21st century church. Still thinking what the alternative would be though.

Here's where I stand - I like to think of myself as progressive. Though having said that, I still believe in the SDA church. I think that we have a great prophetic beginning, but we've lost our way. I guess I would like to see reform from within.

[StormyOne]

Starting a new church would work temporarily... then traditions would emerge, and there would be those who would then defend the traditions and eventually you would end up with what you have now....

As for people who refuse to believe the overwhelming evidence that the narrative in Genesis is not complete or reflect the realities of life here on earth, as I said before, it is a refusal to engage their brain....

[Sophia7]

I guess I would like to see reform from within.

I would like to see this, too, but I guess I'm a little doubtful about whether it can happen within our current organizational structure.

[icedragon101]

I don't know that there is anything odd about it, I don't know how creation occurred but I do know that the evidence around us does not go along with a six literal days of creation. [QUOTE]In other words the ice cores tell me what you know about this subject.


and the fossil record don't show an age that is as young as an literal Genesis account e.g tell me what do you know about this subject ?



. it's genealogies would give us. Ussher's famous 6000 years. I can also tell that the story is laid out in the same way as the other creation myths throughout the world. Chaos brought by God into order. That is what water is nearly universally symbolic for. Of course there would be no liquid water on a planet without a sun and without an atmosphere. If the water was to be present it would be in the form of ice. Of course a primitive people would have no concept of a world covered in ice, it is doubtful they would have even known what a Glacier was. Remember the Genesis story was written after the Exodus from Egypt and it was written for a people who knew very little.

Even today we don't have a clue as to what the Genesis account that we claim is literal is saying. the first day light is created and it separates day from night, yet it is not until the 4th day that the sun and the moon (greater and lesser lights) are created. Yet it is the sun that defines a day on earth. So the days of the prior 4 are defined by something we have know idea about. You can see the method is a good step by step account that concludes with everything we see today but it does not account for things that modern scientifically knowledgeable people see. Even the lesson study on Genesis recently said we would have to wait to ask God what He meant by the creation of the stars on day 4. Because the light that we see today from stars Billions of light years away certainly indicates that they were created before the earth. So many Christians accept that the earth was created Billions of years ago and remained void till creation week, but that does not really help them because the stars according to a literal reading are created on day 4. that is actually a really good answer. I will have to remember it. did you not remember Genesis 2 where the bible says these are the records of the thing of "this earth" the sun and moon are no problem. , the stars might hold a little more problme.


Even plants which are nearly totally dependent upon the sun are in the literal story created before the sun.
by your own consession light existied before the sun and moon and the light could have been God himself.

Then there is the question of why do we take a story as only literal history when it nowhere makes such claims for the story itself. In fact there is no record of attribution even for who wrote the book of Genesis (and textual criticism by most scholars indicate it was made by several stories put together and then further redaction).Genesis 2 says that it is the record of when God created the earth.


The assumption that it was all historical can be accepted by a primitive people with limited knowledge but is that always the way the story is to be understood? that is a huge assumption

The point of the story is that God created not so much how God created.

[DrStupid_Ben]

I would like to see this, too, but I guess I'm a little doubtful about whether it can happen within our current organizational structure.
Reform would have to affect the structure as well.

[icedragon101]

[QUOTE]I mean no disrespect Icedragon, but starting a new church like that will do no good in my opinion. If you targeted the SDA centers of Power you might make a difference. Schools hospitals, conferences offices, Academies

I know that you have your own concept of what "evangelical" should mean, but the evangelical community is such a mix of conservatives, neo-conservatives and post-conservatives, that I think an Evangelical Adventist Church would just disapear into obscurity. I disagree. It might not get as large, but not disappear.

Just out of interest, what would be your structure of this new church? A copy of the current Adventist organisation and doctrines, just without the bits you don't like? A congregationalist approach? I personally think that we don't have the best structure for a global 21st century church. Still thinking what the alternative would be though.
i am not sure. there are thing i like? congergationalism has it upsides and it's down sides. The doctrines are up for revision. right now I would drop EGW as a prophet, drop the IJ, drop the sunday law, drop 2300 day ending in 1844.


Here's where I stand - I like to think of myself as progressive. Though having said that, I still believe in the SDA church. I think that we have a great prophetic beginning, but we've lost our way how exactly are you progressive if you think we had a great prophetic beginning?


. I guess I would like to see reform from within. how is that going to happen?

[icedragon101]

do you know how nice it is to have a conversation with out people attacking you. man it feels nice. intellegence is refreshing.

[JonMiller]

I think that a group of churchs that are organized can get a lot more good done in the world then just a single one. There needs to be some cohesion, but some variance should be allowed. If people are too different, then start or join a new church.

This was one of the things I thought about when I was thinking of leaving the SDA church. Now I want to change it, and be more productive Christian (and no, I don't mean by sinning less or doing less things that are bad ideas, I mean doing more work for Christ). People by themselves, even a good size church, can't do the mission that the adventist church is doing in the world. Even though a good size church can do a lot if the members put their will into it (including sending missionaries and the like).

Icedragon, have you read what some of the 'traditionalists' beleive? It is old school works, we must become perfect, etc. It is very easy to be a 'progressive' and think that Ellen White was a prophet. I think that traditionally adventists have both set the bar too high for a prophet, and put them on too high of pedestal. I can think of many stories I have read where I would classify a person in them as a prophet.

JM

[RC_NewProtestants]

Well Ice I am not going to take the time to list all the things that I know about ice cores and fossils. You need to get primary documentation anyway so those will have to be things you research.

You can see some more of my thoughts where I wrote about the Sabbath School study guide lessons for the quarter on Genesis. They are on my blog but they are also on the Truth or fables website. http://www.truthorfables.com/In_Focus.htm
Not as well written as I would have liked but unlike the quarterly I did not get a lot of prep time.

here are a couple of things to read and a book that you may find helpful.
ADVENTIST CREATIONISM IN THE 21ST CENTURY: FUNDAMENTALIST OR CONSTRUCTIVE? (http://www.atoday.com/423.0.html)

Understanding Genesis: Contemporary Adventist Perspectives (http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Genesis-Contemporary-Adventist-Perspectives/dp/0978614119) (Paperback)
by Brian S. Bull (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/103-1510261-2357445?%5Fencoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Brian%20S.%20Bull) (Editor, Author), Fritz Guy (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/103-1510261-2357445?%5Fencoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Fritz%20Guy) (Editor, Author), Ervin Taylor (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/103-1510261-2357445?%5Fencoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Ervin%20Taylor) (Editor, Author), Ron Burgard (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/103-1510261-2357445?%5Fencoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Ron%20Burgard) (Illustrator), Dalton B. Baldwin (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/103-1510261-2357445?%5Fencoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Dalton%20B.%20Baldwin) (Author), Ivan T. Blazen (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/103-1510261-2357445?%5Fencoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Ivan%20T.%20Blazen) (Author), Richard Bottomley (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/103-1510261-2357445?%5Fencoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Richard%20Bottomley) (Author), Douglas R. Clark (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/103-1510261-2357445?%5Fencoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Douglas%20R.%20Clark) (Author), Warren Johns (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/103-1510261-2357445?%5Fencoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Warren%20Johns) (Author), Lawrence T. Geraty (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/103-1510261-2357445?%5Fencoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Lawrence%20T.%20Geraty) (Author)

Book Description
In his The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism, the distinguished American historian, Ronald Numbers documented in detail the essential role that a devout Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) believer, George McCready Price (1870-1963), played in creating the initial set of modern fundamentalist arguments to support a so-called ¿Flood Geology¿ as a means of explaining the geological column, a position that the scientific community totally rejects. In recent official pronouncements, the SDA Church continues to endorse an essentially literalistic interpretation of the Genesis creation narratives and a geologically recent (<10,000 years) creation and worldwide flood. What may not be known outside of the Adventist subculture is that there has been for many decades major criticisms and exceptions voiced by a number of moderate and progressive SDA theologians and scientists to many aspects of the traditional Adventist understandings promulgated by fundamentalist and conservative elements within the SDA faith tradition. Understanding Genesis: Contemporary Adventist Perspectives is a volume of papers written by SDA theologians and scientists, most of which hold faculty appointments at Adventist colleges and universities in North America. The various chapters provide a spectrum of views on a variety of topics, including non-fundamentalist interpretations of the Genesis creation and flood narratives, a consideration of theistic evolution or progressive creationism, the validity of the evidence dating the geological column and human prehistory, and other related topics.

The conclusion of the Adventist Today article above is very apropo for this thread as it deals with how people of different opinions can get along in a church.


The current dialogue on Creationism between the fundamentalist and nonfundamentalist elements of the church provides not so much a problem as an opportunity. The discussion focused on the issues surrounding this topic may provide a framework and model of how such a church with so many fundamentalist roots might foster--or at least not hinder--constructive pluralism?. Can we as SDA Christians engage in the process of adjusting to a more diverse theological environment, while avoiding unproductive, negative organizational tensions? In the earliest years of the formation of the church, its leaders and scholars wrestled with many diverse opinions until their doctrinal positions were refined and clarified. Can we show the same spirit today?

In the context of this topic, I would like to suggest that one of these constructive refinements now might be to acknowledge as a new normative view of Creationism that the God of the biblical narratives is the Creator of the universe and all that is good in it-and leave the details of what, when, and how it was done to the individual conscience and convictions.

Another constructive refinement would be to implement a suggestion of the current president of the General Conference, Jan Paulsen. His proposal was included in a recent essay entitled "The Theological Landscape," presented at a conference of church leaders in May 2002 on the "Theological Unity in a Growing World Church." In his view, "the church works best when unity and diversity coexist in a nonhostile tension, learning to defer creatively to each other, but loving that which they share more than they love themselves." Recognizing that "some theological polarity" exists in the church of the "right or the left, reactionary or liberal," he asked how the church might deal with this reality. His essentially pragmatic answer was to "learn to live with it."

Some in the church may feel it is vital that they retain the traditional understandings of the Creation narratives in Genesis; their understandings and spiritual integrity should be honored by those who disagree. Others may wish to approach the Creation narratives in Genesis from a nonfundamentalist theological perspective; and their views should be likewise honored. I am suggesting that as a twenty-first-century faith community, we have the opportunity to create a positive environment for all members-including those employed by the organized church-to affirm either fundamentalist or nonfundamentalist perspectives on this and other conflicted theological understandings.

In conclusion, a question that now seems to be squarely before the community of SDA biblical scholars and scientists is, How best can they assist their faith community to reconcile conflicting theological perspectives, including diverse views on Creationism, in a constructive manner that will celebrate the church's historic commitment to "present truth"? All of us can play a constructive and healing role in assisting our faith tradition to create a place where, in the words of Paulsen, "unity and diversity coexist in nonhostile tension," where "people can communicate, understand each other, [and] respect each other's space." I would suggest that the current Creationism dialogues have the potential to serve both as a case study and a model of how other conflicted theological issues in the church can be resolved in a constructive manner and how historically important doctrines, such as the Sabbath, can be revalued in light of new information and insights about how God has, and is, creating the universe and conscious beings within it.

[icedragon101]

you said you knew about ice core and that was one of your reasons for rejecting the 6 day literal creation. I know something about "ice core theroy" and I find it in complete harmony with the 6 days of creation. so what is it that you don't like. If It is what I think it is then you may have rejected 6 day too quickly.

[RC_NewProtestants]

If I recall right ice cores samples have been dated to over 130,000 years. Most who hold to 6 literal days also hold to the Genesis genealogies which gives an age of earth of 6000 years.

Now certainly there are places that argue that the cores are only accurate to say 6 thousand years. It is kind of a standard way literal 6 day creationists try to acknowledge the science yet at the same time deny the science.

What really changed my mind was the fact that we have fossilized cyanobacteria beds which regardless of the dating show no presence of either fungi spores or pollen. There is a branch of paleobotany that deals with fossil pollen and I had an Astronomy teacher whose specialty was just that. In the world we know pollen and spores are ubiquitous yet here is huge masses of bacteria with no evidence of plant matter at all. I don't see any way of comparing the evidence with that of a literal six days of creation. And that is but one of the large amount of data that goes against the six day creation.

[icedragon101]

if I recall right ice cores samples have been dated to over 130,000 years. Most who hold to 6 literal days also hold to the Genesis genealogies which gives an age of earth of 6000 years.

Now certainly there are places that argue that the cores are only accurate to say 6 thousand years. It is kind of a standard way literal 6 day creationists try to acknowledge the science yet at the same time deny the science what is ice core and Ice core theroy? some one may ask.

It is simple: researecher drill into the ice and pull up a core of ice, then they count the light and dark spots on the ice to determine the age of the ice pack. the assumption is that each light and dark spot is 1 years worth of ice growth. this is like the tree rings, count the rings and you get the age. this is the flaw in the system


1. There is nothing in the ice that says it is one year per light patch and one year per dark. that is how they get the long ages. the patches are 1/8 to 1/4 inch thick 1 inch could be 4 to 8 years old. depending on how many light and ark spots there are.

2. There is actually evidence to discredit the light dark assumption. In the 1940's. planes took off from NY headed to europe ,they went to canada then flew to greenland to refuel. Then they headed to ice land but had to turn back due to visiblity problmes. they returned to Greenland and left the plains on an Ice patch and found a way back to NY.


The planes were left there for 40 years. In the 1980's a rich man decided he would go over to greenland put some gas in them and fly them pack. believing in Ice Core he assumed that there should not be more then 1 foot of ice on the ground. When he tried to find the plane in the location they were suppose to be. He could not find them. They were finally located over 200 ft below the current level of the ice.

That kind blows a hole in the ice core theroy.

[RC_NewProtestants]

Well the anecdote about the plane has nothing to do with Ice core dating it is only based upon the assumption of snow deposits over time which of course is very variable.

There are a couple of ways to do Ice Core dating. One method is through the sampling of Hydrogen peroxide which has accurately dated to 8,000 years ago.

Ice Core Dating

By sampling at very fine intervals down the ice core, and provided that each annual layer of snow is thick enough, several samples from each year may be measured for the different chemical properties. It has already been seen that the delta value is related to air temperature when the snow was deposited. Because it is warmer in summer and cooler in winter, and provided the snow layers are not too disturbed by wind, the delta value can show annual cycles. Thus, these values can be used to date the ice core. Hydrogen peroxide is created in the atmosphere by a chemical reaction that requires ultraviolet light. There is a lot less ultraviolet light in the winter than in the summer in Antarctica. Thus, measurements of hydrogen peroxide dissolved in the ice also provide a good annual cycle indicator.
In order to date the ice cores accurately, the annual layers need to be thick enough to obtain about ten measurement samples from each year. The thickness of the annual layers depends on how much snow falls each year. Thus, to obtain an ice core from which accurate, detailed dating can be derived, we need to find an Antarctic site where the snow accumulation is relatively high. This would usually mean we need to find a low elevation site, but it must also be a site where there is no melt. If the snow was to melt at any time during the year, some measurements such as those involving trapped gases would be spoiled. In addition, the annual layers would be destroyed by the melt water which would, effectively, wash the evidence away.
Such locations (high snow accumulation, yet low summer temperatures) are not easy to find. One such location, however, is near the summit of Law Dome, approximately 120 kilometres from Casey Station, where an ice core has been drilled 1,200 metres through the ice sheet to the underlying bedrock. Accurate dating for this core has been obtained back to 8,000 years ago using annual cycles obtained by analysis of delta value and hydrogen peroxide. A section of the graph of delta value and hydrogen peroxide is shown in Figure 4, along with the year. The ice core depth for this section is 139 to 128 metres, corresponding to the dates 1807 to 1826 AD.
http://www.chem.hope.edu/~polik/warming/IceCore/IceCore2.html (http://www.chem.hope.edu/%7Epolik/warming/IceCore/IceCore2.html)


An article which shows some of the other ice core dating techniques and is still written in an easy to read style is found at the following.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html
For those afraid to read the talkorigins site because it is against Short age Creationism, here is a site which deals with understanding the ancient climate through ice cores:
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/icecore/review.php

Then there are other specific articles like this one about south American Ice Cores:

OLDEST ICE CORE FROM THE TROPICS RECOVERED, NEW ICE AGE EVIDENCE

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- An analysis of ice cores drilled from a glacier atop a Bolivian volcano is painting a vivid picture of climate conditions in the tropics over the past 25,000 years. The ice at the bottom of the cores was formed during the last glacial maximum -- the coldest part of the last ice age -- making it the oldest core recovered from the tropics.
In a paper in the journal Science (http://www.sciencemag.org/), the research team describes a climate in the tropics that was different from what many researchers have thought. The findings are the latest result from a 20-year effort to build a global climate record that reaches from the North to the South Pole.
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/sajama.htm

[icedragon101]

Well the anecdote about the plane has nothing to do with Ice core dating it is only based upon the assumption of snow deposits over time which of course is very variable.what?

There are a couple of ways to do Ice Core dating. One method is through the sampling of Hydrogen peroxide which has accurately dated to 8,000 years ago.

An article which shows some of the other ice core dating techniques and is still written in an easy to read style is found at the following.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html
For those afraid to read the talkorigins site because it is against Short age Creationism, here is a site which deals with understanding the ancient climate through ice cores:
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/icecore/review.php

Then there are other specific articles like this one about south American Ice Cores:what ?

[icedragon101]

it look like i did know what I was talking about. and my illustration was valid


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core


Dating cores

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/31/GISP2_1855m_ice_core_layers.png/384px-GISP2_1855m_ice_core_layers.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GISP2_1855m_ice_core_layers.png) http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GISP2_1855m_ice_core_layers.png)
19 cm long section of GISP 2 ice core from 1855 m showing annual layer structure illuminated from below by a fiber optic source. Section contains 11 annual layers with summer layers (arrowed) sandwiched between darker winter layers.


Shallow cores, or the upper parts of cores in high-accumulation areas, can be dated exactly by counting individual layers, each representing a year. These layers may be visible, related to the nature of the ice; or they may be chemical, related to differential transport in different seasons; or they may be isotopic, reflecting the annual temperature signal (for example, snow from colder periods has less of the heavier isotopes of H (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen) and O (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen)). Deeper into the core the layers thin out due to ice flow and eventually individual years cannot be distinguished. It may be possible to identify events such as nuclear bomb atmospheric testing's radioisotope layers in the upper levels, and ash layers corresponding to known volcanic eruptions. Volcanic eruptions may be detected by visible ash layers, acidic chemistry, or electrical resistance change. Some composition changes are detected by high-resolution scans of electrical resistance. Lower down the ages are reconstructed by modeling accumulation rate variations and ice flow.

[icedragon101]

it look like i did know what I was talking about. and my illustration was valid


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core


Dating cores

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/31/GISP2_1855m_ice_core_layers.png/384px-GISP2_1855m_ice_core_layers.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GISP2_1855m_ice_core_layers.png) http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GISP2_1855m_ice_core_layers.png)
19 cm long section of GISP 2 ice core from 1855 m showing annual layer structure illuminated from below by a fiber optic source. Section contains 11 annual layers with summer layers (arrowed) sandwiched between darker winter layers.


Shallow cores, or the upper parts of cores in high-accumulation areas, can be dated exactly by counting individual layers, each representing a year. These layers may be visible, related to the nature of the ice; or they may be chemical, related to differential transport in different seasons; or they may be isotopic, reflecting the annual temperature signal (for example, snow from colder periods has less of the heavier isotopes of H (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen) and O (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen)). Deeper into the core the layers thin out due to ice flow and eventually individual years cannot be distinguished. It may be possible to identify events such as nuclear bomb atmospheric testing's radioisotope layers in the upper levels, and ash layers corresponding to known volcanic eruptions. Volcanic eruptions may be detected by visible ash layers, acidic chemistry, or electrical resistance change. Some composition changes are detected by high-resolution scans of electrical resistance. Lower down the ages are reconstructed by modeling accumulation rate variations and ice flow.

Well the anecdote about the plane has nothing to do with Ice core dating it is only based upon the assumption of snow deposits over time which of course is very variable.

There are a couple of ways to do Ice Core dating. One method is through the sampling of Hydrogen peroxide which has accurately dated to 8,000 years ago.

An article which shows some of the other ice core dating techniques and is still written in an easy to read style is found at the following.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html
For those afraid to read the talkorigins site because it is against Short age Creationism, here is a site which deals with understanding the ancient climate through ice cores:
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/icecore/review.php

Then there are other specific articles like this one about south American Ice Cores:
RC they are saying the same thing,

The assumption is that the theroy of dating is correct. which my illustration show is not. they assume a tree ring like pattern and numeration. which can be disproved.

[RC_NewProtestants]

Did you read those links, it is far more to the tecniques then simply tree ring analogy. Your illustration shows us nothing. If your illustration was to show anything it would have to show that counting the layers was not accurate in correlating the known age of the plane with the layers of ice.

One creation science website says without giving any source:
One known example where this assumption was used is very misleading. Ice cores showed the age of a military plane buried in the artic as thousands of years old. Similarly, dendrochronology measures the tree rings in trees and assumes they represent years. Climate chronology uses evidence of a climatic change, such as an ice age, as a benchmark for dating.

http://www.allaboutcreation.org/relative-dating-faq.htm


Your plane story is debunked on the following website
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/kuechmann_cretin_comedy.htm

[icedragon101]

it look like i did know what I was talking about. and my illustration was valid


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core


Dating cores

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/31/GISP2_1855m_ice_core_layers.png/384px-GISP2_1855m_ice_core_layers.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GISP2_1855m_ice_core_layers.png) http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GISP2_1855m_ice_core_layers.png)
19 cm long section of GISP 2 ice core from 1855 m showing annual layer structure illuminated from below by a fiber optic source. Section contains 11 annual layers with summer layers (arrowed) sandwiched between darker winter layers.


Shallow cores, or the upper parts of cores in high-accumulation areas, can be dated exactly by counting individual layers, each representing a year. These layers may be visible, related to the nature of the ice; or they may be chemical, related to differential transport in different seasons; or they may be isotopic, reflecting the annual temperature signal (for example, snow from colder periods has less of the heavier isotopes of H (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen) and O (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen)). Deeper into the core the layers thin out due to ice flow and eventually individual years cannot be distinguished. It may be possible to identify events such as nuclear bomb atmospheric testing's radioisotope layers in the upper levels, and ash layers corresponding to known volcanic eruptions. Volcanic eruptions may be detected by visible ash layers, acidic chemistry, or electrical resistance change. Some composition changes are detected by high-resolution scans of electrical resistance. Lower down the ages are reconstructed by modeling accumulation rate variations and ice flow. did you not see this this is a core of ice 19 cm look at how many years they say it is old. 11 years old

[icedragon101]

19 cm =7.48 inch

[RC_NewProtestants]

The thickness of a core does not correlate to its age. The plane story is based upon the assumption that thickness of ice is indicative of age but that is not how ice cores work.

From the last article I linked to above:
Anyone genuinely familiar with ice core dating knows that, like the growth rings of a tree, the quantity used in counting is the number of discernible annual layers – not the thickness. Wieland at first seems to be somewhat aware of that as he continues:

In fact, ice cores in Greenland are used for dating, based on the belief that layers containing varying isotope ratios were laid down, somewhat like the rings of a tree, over many tens of thousands of years.

The seekers of the buried aircraft never extracted intact ice core samples and subjected them to the tests used in scientific dating, and ice cores from moving glaciers aren`t used for studying anything but glacial movement. Yet, a bit further on, Wieland seems to be comparing the length of genuine ice core samples from the GRIP or GISP 2 projects[1] with the ice thickness burying the aircraft:

Evolutionists and other long–agers often say that "the present is the key to the past". In that case, the 3000 metres of ice core brought up in Greenland in 1990 would only represent some 2,000 years of accumulation.

Suddenly the thickness of 268 feet of glacial ice near the east coast that was melted through by non-scientists to recover the "Glacier Girl" P-38 fighter is being used to date "3000 metres of ice core" extracted deep in the interior of the Greenland ice sheet.[2] Has he already forgotten his "rings of a tree" analogy just a few paragraphs earlier? Has he opted for no more flim-flam about annual layers? -- let's just measure the thickness in two widely-separated locations, compare them, and be done with it. Is Wieland funny, or what? Exaggeration for comic effect, I suppose, or perhaps the sleigh-of-hand of the parlour magician is at work. The GISP 2 core samples were dated using 42 scientifically validated parameters, and Wieland wants to overrule the dating with a scientifically ridiculous comparison of thicknesses. What a knee-slapper this guy is, huh?
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/kuechmann_cretin_comedy.htm

[JonMiller]

guys, you are being silly

JM

[icedragon101]

The thickness of a core does not correlate to its age. The plane story is based upon the assumption that thickness of ice is indicative of age but that is not how ice cores work.

From the last article I linked to above: I never said it did. RC it seems to me that you are trying to hard to keep your premise. Thou doset protest to much.

the number of layers does = number of years,
.

[RC_NewProtestants]

I guess I don't know how to get through to you. So why not deal with the facts involved. What is the ice core data from the site of Glacier Girl airplane recovery. In other words how many layers were there?

You will find that they don't know because there was no scientific measurements made in the Glacier Girl recovery. The incident has nothing at all to do with ice core dating.

As for the layers equalling years I am in agreement but the process is far more involved then merely counting layers as you would count tree rings. Which means the method of verification is much more involved also and involves other methods such as isotope presence to determine age.

[icedragon101]

I guess I don't know how to get through to you. So why not deal with the facts involved. What is the ice core data from the site of Glacier Girl airplane recovery. In other words how many layers were there?

You will find that they don't know because there was no scientific measurements made in the Glacier Girl recovery. The incident has nothing at all to do with ice core dating.

As for the layers equalling years I am in agreement but the process is far more involved then merely counting layers as you would count tree rings. Which means the method of verification is much more involved also and involves other methods such as isotope presence to determine age.
i understand exactly what you are saying I just don't agree with you.

the air plain recovery has an indrect not direct. it is important for what it tells us about the growth rate of the ice pack. in 40 years the acculamated to 250 feet that is an avrage of 6.5 feet per year. that is a known fact. The illustartion of the ice core samp at 19 cm has 11 years of growth according to the theroy.

I know they are not the same sample, but there whole way of mesuring they years is by light and dark variation in the ice. That is not a stable way of mesuring. you must have a fixed point to determine the starting mesurement and then measure from there.

what the air plane mesusrement tells us is that the rate of growth in not consistant with the standard scientific thinking and must be rethought

[icedragon101]

the question that needs to be asked are

1. what are the lengths of the ice cores that have already been pulled out

2. was there a bench mark for the beginning of the test?

3. what was the anual rain fall. if you don't know this? how do you determine the growth rate.

[RC_NewProtestants]

I can't make it any plainer I guess. This seems so obvious to me and clearly to the rest of those involved with the science, there is no scholarly argument against the ice core dating based upon the planes. Of course ice cores are not based upon glacial ice so I don't know what to tell you.

[icedragon101]

RC

on this issue we will have to agree to disagree. there are just to many things that don't make sense about the postion you are advocating. I thought it was a good conversation though. thanks for the good exchange

[icedragon101]

WWII plane to complete mission 65 years later (http://www.yahoo.com/s/611172)


them air plain is in the news

[honorthesabbath]

?????????????

[JonMiller]

removed

JM

[honorthesabbath]

??????????????????