|
as the Spirit of Jesus shakes His head in
horror
A
SUPPOSED "UNIVERSITY", A PLACE WHERE OPEN DEBATE TRADITIONALLY
IS WELCOMED AND FOSTERED, CLOSES ITS MIND TO GENUINE PROGRESS! --
The following is a
direct quotation of an article appearing on page 15
of the Southern
Tidings dated June, 2011. I am sent this paper because
I am a medical doctor and a
graduate of Loma Linda University school
of Medicine (1971) and
School of Health (1971) [more about this later].
| "Southern
Adventist University wrote and published its
first Creation statement on February 20, 2011, affirming seven
critical principles that pertain to Creation, such as a
belief in the Genesis Creation story as literal, and the Word
of God is true.
"The statement was
created after a General Conference Executive Committee for
Seventh-day Adventists appealed to educational institutions to
uphold the Adventist belief on Creation. It also was
formed as part of the University's desire to show Southern's
personal stance on the issue."
"Creation is
foundational," says Greg King, dean of the School of
Religion. 'It tells us we are not a product of purposeless
nothing, but of a loving, benevolent God who wants to have a
relationship with us.'
"In January, a
University senate sub-committee was created to develop and write
the statement. It consisted of seven members from
several areas of the University, including biology, chemistry,
physics, English, religion, business, and marketing and university
relations. Within one month of meeting, the statement was
passed and approved."
"The members
already had a vision of what kind of statement Southern should have,
and I think that is why it went so quickly," says Mitch Menzmer,
a professor in the chemistry department. "What it gets
down to is whether or not a person will take the Bible as
authoritative, or science as authoritative. You can't have both on
issues of origins." |
 |
|
| Dr. Robert Flewelling
Holt, MD |
Doctor Holt's alma
mater, Loma Linda University |
|
Dr. Robert Holt md, mph, who owes his scientific
education at Loma Linda University to the open-mindedness and good
judgment of his teachers at Columbia Union College (Now Washington
Adventist University), is very critical of Southern Adventist
University's new statement regarding the Bible Creation Story. This
supposed 'University' has so effectively
closed up any possibility for progressive modern thought on this
subject, that not even a modern Jesuit or pope could conscientiously
sign this statement.
|
|
First Southern's
statement, then Dr. Holt's critical assessment of that statement.
Southern's Creation statement
directly affirms seven principles:
1. We affirm the primacy, authority,
and trustworthiness of the Bible in all areas of inquiry it addresses,
including the origin of the natural world and the various kinds of
life created therein.
2. We affirm that Genesis 1-11 is an
accurate and historical account of the events it presents. The
description found therein is reaffirmed throughout the Old Testament,
and every New Testament writer and Jesus Himself explicitly or
implicitly affirms the historicity of Genesis 1-11.
3. We affirm the supernatural Creation of
a beautiful and perfect world in one literal week of six consecutive, contiguous,
24-hour days of creative activity, followed by the Sabbath of rest.
4. We affirm that the Creation week
and the origin of life on Earth took place recently, a few thousand
years ago, and that there was no life on Earth prior to that time.
5. We affirm that death came
about as the result of human sin, that there was no death in the world
as originally created, and that there will be no death in the new
Earth as restored by God.
6. We affirm the
value of Ellen G. White's endorsement of the biblical teaching on the
early history of Earth, specifically a literal six-day creation, God's
rest on the literal seventh day, a short chronology of life on Earth
of a few thousand years, and a global Flood.
7. We affirm that the doctrine
of Creation is foundational for and interconnected with other
important biblical doctrines, including the inspiration of Scripture,
the Sabbath, the character of God, the plan of salvation, marriage,
resurrection, and the new earth.
Whether it is a professor in the
science or English department, both affirm Southern's stance on
Creation, representing the University's unified belief on this issue.
"At Southern we do not have to start
with an ambiguous understanding of our origins," says Robert
Montague, a professor in the School of Business and Management.
"Instead, we can start with a sturdy faith in the Word of God,
and rather than doubt God, we can appreciate and delight in His
Word."
|
Educated people with graduate and
post-graduated degrees, some of whom
I assume were involved with the
making of this statement, know the importance
of definitions, without which no
one is quite sure of what is being discussed.
The statement begins with some big
words: -- "Primacy", "authority", and
"trustworthiness", a
definition of these terms is in order ----- "The Living Webster
Encylopedic Dictionary of the
English Language" includes some ecclesiastical
definitions so I'll use this
source (1977 edition)
"Primacy" (page 756) "The
state of being first in order, rank, or importance;
eccles The office, rank, or dignity of
being a primate.'
"Authority" (page 67) "Power
or right to command or act; dominion; control;
a person or persons exercising power or control; ---
a reference source or expert
in a field to support a fact, opinion, action, etc.
"Trustworthiness"
(page1061) "Worthy of trust or confidence; reliable.'
Those who apply all these
qualities to the Bible are called "Fundamentalists" so
let's look at how this dictionary
defines "Fundamentalism".
"Fundamentalism" (page
394) "A belief that the Bible is to be accepted
literally as an
inerrant and infallible spiritual and
historical document (Often cap.) an early 20th century
U.S. Protestant movement stressing this belief; any
similar belief or movement."
Obviously, Webster's would define Southern's
statement as a typical Fundamentalist Statement.
|
That Southern's statement
goes on to affirm this is true in "all areas of
inquiry it addresses,"
including the origin of the natural world and the various kinds of
life created therein." -- should not surprise us,
since this is completely in line with, and to be expected from, any
group now classified as "Fundamentalist".
However, the former complete
arbitrariness of these groups has been softened over the years as
students and ministers have grappled with such Biblical gems as Numbers
ch. 30, Deuteronomy 21:18-21, 22:5 and 1 Timothy 2:11-15,
which I will digress long enough from my critique of Southern's stance
on Creation and Noah's Flood to quote here. "
Numbers 30:3 "If
a woman also vow a vow unto the Lord, and bind herself with a bond,
being in her father's house in her youth; 4 And her father hear
her vow, and her bond wherewith she hath bound her soul, and her father
shall hold his peace at her: then all her vows shall stand, and every
bond where with she hath bound her soul shall stand. 5 But
if her father disallow her in the day that he heareth; not any of her
vows, or of her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand:
the Lord shall forgive her, because her father disallowed her."
6-8 (A woman's husband
could also disallow her promises to God, and God would understand, and
free her from her promises.)
9 "But every
vow of a widow, and of her that is divorced, wherewith they have bound
their souls, shall stand against her."
Deuteronomy 21:18 "If
a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey
the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when
they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19 "Then
shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto
the elders of the city, and unto the gate of his place;
20 "And they
shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and
rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a
drunkard.
21 "And all
the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so
shall thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and
fear.
Deuteronomy 22:5 "The
woman shall not wear that which pertaineth to a man, neither shall a
man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto
the Lord thy God." [Evidently the Catholic monks who burned
Joan of Arc at the stake were obeying a Biblical law!]
1 Timothy 2:11 "Let
the women learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I
suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but
to be in silence.
13 For Adam
was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam
was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the
transgression.
15 Notwithstanding
she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and
charity and holiness with sobriety. IE: Men can be saved by faith,
being capable of it -- women must be saved by good works!]
A
fairly high percentage of students at Southern Adventist University are
girls and women, and I wonder if they can now look forward to rules
that blue jeans and slacks are no longer permitted to class or even on
hikes and during sports events. And they should immediately
cancel all classes that might lead to leadership positions that allow
them to tell men what to do. But, should that be the
case (and I pray that it isn't,) then God will forgive them for their
impudence if their fathers or husbands disallow that it was their idea
that their daughters or sweethearts made such plans.
I
have purposely avoided such texts as the right of a bridegroom to have his newly married
bride stoned to death if he discovers on his wedding night she is not a
virgin. And that gem of a text I found (with the help of
the Internet) in Numbers 5 that apparently allows abortions, so
long as they are performed by the priests in the tabernacle.
|
|
Southern's statement
#2 shows that someone in the group thought about the difficulties
one might face in such texts as I have quoted above, and chose to bring
everyone's attention to, and hopefully limit the discussion to, Genesis
chapters 1-11. Which just barely reaches "the
great Flood of Noah" and not much beyond.
|
|
2. "We affirm that Genesis 1-11 is an
accurate and historical account of the events it presents. The
description found therein is reaffirmed throughout the Old Testament,
and every New Testament writer and Jesus Himself explicitly or
implicitly affirms the historicity of Genesis 1-11."
My
1 page expose of SHEOL and the Noah Flood Story
Not only was the unscientific idea of a "flat earth" supported by 4
pillars and covered by a hemispherical bubble of air (and water) abandoned when
ships started crossing the Atlantic to the Americas, but the Vatican now has its
own astronomical observatory. (And "pardoned" Galileo).
Also, some of the New Testament writers cited here are quoting the Noah Flood
story to support the suppressed
Enoch stories of "angels in prison" awaiting a final judgment of God
for seducing the daughters of Eve. (Jude, 1 Peter, 2 Peter) 
I supported the biblical story of a world-wide flood myself on my web-site
Healthark.com for a decade, including my own trip to the environs of Mt. Ararat
in eastern Turkey with Dave Fasold. And I was as disappointed as
were a lot of others to finally discover that the ruins of Sheruppak had been
discovered and dated to within a few years of the Biblical date for Noah's
Flood. Sheruppak was the home of Utnapishtim, the Sumarian
Noah. Sadly, the flood covered only a few square miles in relatively flat
country in Mesopotamia. Utnapishtim's ark only held perhaps 8 people
and a few animals because it was only large enough to hold that many without
sinking. There are pictures of it built of wood and other pictures of it built
of reeds, so that doesn't help us with that problem. Utnapishtim was
a priest of Lord Ea, the creator of mankind, and his temple was destroyed, so it
was a very important event. Lord Enlil was bothered by the
noise of too many humans in that vicinity. The flood lasted 7 days,
and after that enough humans had died so that Enlil could "rest"
better, so some even suggest that this probably quite real historical event may
also be the origin of the seven-day week followed by a day of rest for
God. Jewish scribes, dissatisfied with only God benefitting,
made it a day of rest for humans also.
|
|
3. We affirm the supernatural Creation of
a beautiful and perfect world in one literal week of six consecutive, contiguous,
24-hour days of creative activity, followed by the Sabbath of
rest."
If you clicked
on My
1 page expose of SHEOL you
have a good start on understanding creation week as the Biblical author
now labeled as "J" envisioned it, but the Essenes, who edited
all these stories to support their own prophetic agenda, used the story
in a backwards fashion to support a MILLENNIAL WEEK. They supposed
that those of us now living in that 7th Millennial Day (as we have been
since October 22, 1844) would have enough good sense and research ability
to understand both what they did and why they did it!
Perhaps they have overestimated the logical abilities and dedication to
real truth-seeking of the faculty of Southern Adventist
University! For my series explaining the MILLENNIAL WEEK, click
here..
4. We affirm that the Creation week
and the origin of life on Earth took place recently, a few thousand
years ago, and that there was no life on Earth prior to that time.
Here the
reference is to the chronology developed by the Anglican Bishop Ussher,
based on the ages of the patriarchs in Genesis when they had their first
sons, and their ages at death. However, this system breaks
down badly when you compare these same ages and events to the same ages
and events in the Septuigint, an older version of the Bible used by Jesus
and his disciples. For an instructive and interesting source
on Ussher's problems, and how he chose to solve them refer to William
Whiston's Unabridged The Works of Josephus, 1987 edition. (Whiston
wrote it in 1736). In my copy the paging is 849-572
(Dissertation 5)
The Bible itself (in the original Hebrew) admits there were other men
("adam" with the "a" not capitalized) who preceded
Adam (with the capital "A")
For more on this subject, click
here.
In a
University, some of whose students expect to be prepared to go
on to a "higher education" such as I got at Loma Linda
University, it seems a shame that some religion professor is attempting a
vendetta against most of the major scientific knowledge learned in
the last two centuries!
5. We affirm that death came
about as the result of human sin, that there was no death in the world
as originally created, and that there will be no death in the new
Earth as restored by God.
Here again we are in danger
of being mislead by a bit of Essene editing, who edited into Genesis
1:29,30 their own preferred diet of fruits, seeds, and vegetables.
Imagining an ideal world in which animals ate only vegetables also, with
a few strokes of their pens, they made it so. God Himself
becomes the first butcher, making garments to clothe his naked children,
because death is preferable to human nakedness.
That there will be
no death in "the new Earth as restored by God" can be inferred by
certain texts in Isaiah and Revelation.
These texts were fulfilled by Jesus as
King of Kashmir in the first century AD, however, and need not be fulfilled
again in our time. For a fuller treatment of this subject: click
here
|
|
6. We affirm the
value of Ellen G. White's endorsement of the biblical teaching on the
early history of Earth, specifically a literal six-day creation, God's
rest on the literal seventh day, a short chronology of life on Earth
of a few thousand years, and a global Flood.
Ellen G. White
was born and died before the World Wars were won, before travel by autos
and airplanes was common, and before most of the knowledge we now have
was available. Her earliest prophecies hinted at the
existence of the Essenes and the knowledge of our religious origins that
would become available through the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. She
should not be expected to explain information that her generation could
neither understand nor use properly. For further information
about the Essenes in Ellen White's first vision of December, 1844, click
here
7. We affirm that the doctrine
of Creation is foundational for and interconnected with other
important biblical doctrines, including the inspiration of Scripture,
the Sabbath, the character of God, the plan of salvation, marriage,
resurrection, and the new earth.
True indeed, but the
list is too short. The committee should also have added
"Biblical Astrology"!
Genesis
1:14 "And God said, Let their be lights in the firmament of
the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for
signs,
and for seasons, and for days, and years;
15 "And let
them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the
earth: and it was so.
16 "And God
made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser
light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 "And God
set them in the firmanent of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18
And to rule over the day and the night, and to divide the
light
from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 "And the
evening and the morning were the fourth day."
The
activities of the fourth day of creation in Bible Genesis are written
in the language of Astrology ("rule the day", "rule the
night", "signs and seasons") and the major religious
concerns of the Essenes ("light" vs "darkness")
because these verses were edited by the Essenes, and the Essenes were
Astrologers. Their horoscopes were found among the Dead
Sea Scrolls.
Creation as
taught in the Bible is a convenient and easily understood parable that
can and does illustrate all these subjects enumerated, but need not be
either literal or historical to do what it was intended to do by the
Biblical authors, mainly the Essenes. If we make of it a crutch, we
may always be seen as limping into the future, with our downcast eyes not
seeing what the Essenes intended for us to see once more complete
information has become available. As wrote Paul in 1
Corinthians 13:9-12
"For we know in
part, and we prophesy in part---"
"But when that
which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done
away---"
"When I
was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a
child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.---
[My
interpretation: I was able to GO BEYOND what is written in Genesis 1-11]
"For
now we [Paul and his companions] see
through a glass, darkly; but then [you who will later read
these words] face to face: now I [a
first-century Essene] know in part; but then shall
I [the 21st century Essenes] know even
as also I [the first-century Essenes] am
known."
[The first-century Essenes
have been "known" since the 1950s, perhaps it's time the
religion department at Southern Adventist University took the time to get
to know the real Jesus, Peter, and Paul, not their "dark image,
through a glass"]
It's time the "Latter-Day
Essenes" discover who and what they are -- and Who it was that
arranged this to happen!
NEXT:
Controversial Christ -- Controversial God
|
|
