What to do about Clifford Goldstein?  I thought that had already been decided:  Take control of the Adventist colleges, educate the next generation to regard the Bible none too seriously, impress on them the truth that man really evolved from a single-celled organism over the course of >500 million years, and that Church is kind of like a club or a cultural heritage, mental comfort food that makes the transition from Christianity to post-Christianity or "cultural" Christianity less jarring.  Eventually, the older generation that, like Clifford Goldstein, actually believes in the truth of the Bible and biblical doctrines will just die off and be replaced by the younger generation.

This plan has been underway now for more than a generation, at places like LaSierra, and it is only a matter of time, a matter of waiting, until the older generation is gone, and the church is filled with people who've been taught not to take the Bible as the literal truth.  That this plan is working exactly as expected is evidenced by the fact that one young person approached Clifford Goldstein to complain about the fundamentalism in the church.

Ah, Erv, what would you do without a marvelous foil like Cliff. I think you both write to tweak each other! For me, like both of you as followers of our Lord, the place for reality begins with the One who said,"I am the Way, the Truth, and life" (John 14:6). Of course, if we don't, there is no way on earth or hell that any genuine understanding can take place. It leads to a dead end when we believe in experience over propositional truth, such as the verse just quoted. If I don't begin with what Jesus said and did, then everything is up for grabs and the faster, slickest talker. Of course, again, we must have good reason to accept or reject what we know about Jesus--but for me, He, through His various ways, satisfies my head and heart (at the same time), ever learning more reasons why He makes sense. Am I in the right ball park? Cheers, Herb

Erv, What I'm curious about is what in the Bible you actually do believe. Where does the fairy tale end and the truth begin?

If God is not the Creator, can he be the Redeemer? If not, is the entire Jesus "myth"  false--no virgin birth, no resurrection, no transfiguration, no confrontation with Satan in the wilderness, no miracles associated with His ministry, etc?  

 If that is the case, significant portions of the book of Acts must go, the parts dealing with supernatural events in the early church. Certainly, if Jesus doing marvelous works is a myth, his followers could hardly do the same in his name. 

I recently had a friend, a former teacher in a Chinese military university, ask about discovering proof in the Bible for the existence of God. Based, in a large part, on what I have read here, I have concluded that Scripture must be understood on a metaphysical level. I told him that Scripture would not provide scientific proof of God's existence.

Every discipline which handles physical evidence relative to the Bible is so wracked with disagreement, how can anyone become convinced on the basis of conflicting analysis of data? Only by cherry picking "evidence" favorable to our preconceived opinions can we find comfort. I  am uncomfortable with that approach. I'm not uncomfortable taking the position that Scripture must be accepted by faith. Without faith, it simply can not be understood.

Paul says as much when he ridicules those who must have either "wisdom" or a sign in order to believe. To them the Bible is either  foolishness or a stumbling block. It is certainly not a revelation of the power of God unto salvation.

Is it "Elder" Goldstein?  When was he annointed to preach the word? 

 At any rate, he is a great antidote  for hypotension for those who bother to take him seriously.  Frankly, it is a lark to read his rantings about how he, a rather recent convert (compared to 5th generation SDAs) and demonstrates all the zeal of one who is still rejoicing that he found the "truth", that "truth" being the 1844 prophetic interpretation that to him, proved the absolute veracity of he SDA message, carefully overlooking that it began with the later date and reversed until there was a date that meshed with the preconceived time. 

He seems to echo, if not reinforce those SDAs in the hinterlands who have avoided "higher education" as the devil's workshop.

Hansen,

You are asking the oldest questions:  Is there evidence, without a doubt, that there is a God, and that the Bible is literally true in all its descriptions?

As you rightly acknowledge, there can be no proof, and if not believed by faith, it is useless.  Faith requires no evidence, else it is not faith.  But to believe all that is said in the Bible about God defies reason and logic:  IOW, park your mind and reason aside when the Bible is read.

Some are unable to do so, and are then called "unbelievers" which is the proper term:  one cannot believe such impossible and even contradictory tales collated from many authors, few agreeing, and yet attempt to compose a harmonious  picture.

 These are not questions that have arisen recently, but have preoccupied the finest philosophers for millenia--without resolution:  if God is omnipotent why is the world we know in such a conflict?  If God was the creator did he create animals that solely exist as carnivores?  Or cause the volcanoes and floods that periodically cause such great damage and loss of life? Did he create humans who killed millions and babies born with serious, life-shortening anomalies? 

These are the things that cannot be ignored; if so, it is because those who do so are radically selecting the data.  One should be prepared to explain them, or offer some reasons or it will be setting up an absolute roadblock to the notion that what is behind the world is perfect in poewr, wisdom, and goodness.

Hansen as usual gets to the jugular fast: Is truth knowable? We look for evidence, testing out all comers. Paul had a cerebral earthquake on the way to Damascus but I have never had such. But I discovered that Paul's personal response to the truth, as he now understood it with both head and heart, made sense to me. It is the only biblical definition of the "good news" that we have today--it was the truth that changed his life and vindicated his new life work: "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes (has faith). . .  for in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, 'The just shall live by faith.'" Paul found the truth, deeper as the days went by, because he was not embarrassed by what happened to people up and down the Mediterranean basin--the power of a dynamic God who produced what He promised. What Jesus promised, happened. That is truth verified. That is exactly how Paul's truth gets to us today--from faith to faith. If someone's "truth" claims do not produce what it promises, forget it. For me, Truth that I know is built on what Jesus has said and did--after that make sure one's theology is faithful to what He said and did. Cheers, Herb

Elaine: I wish I could see your tongue in your cheek when you talk about Adventists in the "hinterlands who have avoided 'higher education.'" That was a dazzling piece of rhetoric! Could you please explain your shorthand to some of us who only have a few nitials behind our names?  Forget it, I know you are kidding.

Regarding 1844, do you have a problem here? Cheers, Herb

Herb,

Not exactly TIC, but I do recall earlier times when there was an anti-intellectual slant in Adventism, and recall a certain SDA scholar, still living, who was highly ridiculed for attending an "outside" seminary  for  graduate school that would enable him to teach university.  Also, there are still those in the "hinterlands" (not necessarily geographic) who look askance at graduate education and some of this is borne out by the fear of losing one's religion by in-depth study at that level.  There was a time (still is ?) when questioning the propostional religious doctrines that were taught was only a little short of being labeled "heresy." 

Admittedly, it is a hazard:  if one's religion, as taught, is unable to stand close theological and rational scrutiny, it may fall by the wayside.  You probably know whereof I speak from personal acquaintences. 

"Also, there are still those in the "hinterlands" (not necessarily geographic) who look askance at graduate education and some of this is borne out by the fear of losing one's religion by in-depth study at that level."

I give you now the EducateTruthers.

I think, Erv, that every time you attack the Bible, Adventism, Ellen White, and Christian education by promoting the most dangerous form of infidelity known as evolution over long ages, you lessen the credibility of Adventist Today as well as your own credibility.

That Adventist Today permits you to use it as a vehicle to attack the Bible, Adventism, Ellen White, and true education in this manner gives the impression that the Adventist Today board and the 3ABN board have some things in common. That is unfortunate.

"Also, there are still those in the "hinterlands" (not necessarily geographic) who look askance at graduate education and some of this is borne out by the fear of losing one's religion by in-depth study at that level."

ProfessorNot Kent,

Any course of study that undermines faith in God's Word is technically not true education.

The level of study is not the issue. Graduate education in religion, science, math, and all is fine. But if it undermines faith in God's word, it is not true education.

Mr. Pickle's says I have attacked "the Bible, Adventism, Ellen White, and Christian (or true) education." One might ask why he does not also allege that I also have attacked "Motherhood, the American way, and Apple Pie?" This is about the level of seriousness we should extend to his allegations.

However, I would suggest that hidden beneath the mound of misunderstandings is a serious point that we might salvage. Several writers of the years have noted that one systematic problem confronting the traditional Adventist theological system is that tends to be viewed by many in an "all-or-nothing" mode. It is thought of as a "package deal"-every single element must be true or no element is true. It is like a house of cards-take one card away and the entire edifice collapses.

While this perspective can be viewed as being caused by several historical factors, might I suggest that it is currently, in large part, a function of the perceived need for our official faith community to project in our mass evangelistic efforts the idea that the Adventist message is not just communicating a series of Christian truths but offering "the" absolute truth about Christianity and the future in a comprehensive package that is uniquely Adventist.

Thus when one or two of the elements of the traditional Adventist system are called into question, this is interpreted by people like Mr. Pickle as a broad scaled attack and rejection of the entire fabric of Adventist Christianity. I would assume that the idea that there is a small core of Adventist Christian values (not the 28) and there are a much larger set of traditional Adventist ideas and understandings which can be and have, in fact, been modified over time is difficult for some to appreciate. What might be said about that core of Adventist Christian values will have to await for another time.

Mr Pickle (what a delightful pseudonymn) you write that what Erv Taylor says "gives the impression that the Adventist Today board and the 3ABN board have some things in common."

Erv Taylor is the publisher of Adventist Today and vice chair of the AT Foundation Board.  I am the editor of Adventist Today and there are a number of areas where Erv and I are on the opposite ends of the spectrum.   He believes in theistic evolution as you point out but I believe in creation in six literal days a few thousands of years ago.  So please don't lump everyone into the same batch.  Erv is a most honorable gentleman whom I love to work with and who (despite what some may think) is very open to taking advice and following through on what others suggest.

Actually, I am preparing an issue of AT in which we will look in more depth at the evolution creation debate.  We will focus in particular on the subject of where death came from and the implications of the different views.

David Newman

Editor, Adventist Today

Pray tell, Pickle, since when did Adventist Today have any credibility in your eyes? And by what matrix would you determine whether it is gaining or losing credibility in the eyes of others?

If credibility is measured by the ability to stimulate provocative dialogue on topics of interest to Adventists, your rather amusing fixation with Dr. Taylor's blogs would suggest that AToday maintains high credibility for you. Were this the ideologically driven website of your imagination, you surely would not have the freedom to post OT personal attacks on AToday and its staff for not being what you think they should be.

AToday aspires to be a credible marketplace for exchange of ideas about Adventist  beliefs and perspectives independent of official Church organizations and publications. How much space is devoted to defending orthodoxy, and how much is devoted to challenging orthodoxy is up to you, me, and the other readers who come here for lively exchange of ideas.  

Pickle,

Very nice circular reasoning. The bible is "true", faith tells me its true, therefore it is true. Furthermore, any proposition that undermines my faith in the Bible as being the literal word of God is to be rejected, i.e. higher education which teaches us to question and not to accept all propositions without scrutiny.

Erv is pointing out the obvious in biblical interpretation. All individuals who interpret scripture do so in a Smorgasbord fashion. Literalists are very selective in what they want interpreted literally. Again, a story does not have to be literal to say something true about the human experience or a human reaction to what they perceive as Gods influence in their lives. 

I do read Dr. Goldsteins rants for comedic purposes because of the strident certainty of which he frames his arguments. That is amusing.

As a new comer to Atoday, I was very excited to read this topic and Erv’s introductory post on it.  But I have frankly been rather disappointed by the responses.  Most have been extremely general and somewhat vague.  Maybe this topic is either too hot, or has been overdone in the past and was meant to die.  But I thought that before giving up, I’d make a stab at reviving it. 

Erv was very specific in some questions posed, questions that I have had myself, which no one has yet responded to.  Was Saul visited by a Ghost? Did the sun stand still? Did Jonah live in the belly of a fish for three days?  

I would add many others to these, including the following:  Anyone showing contempt for a priest or judge must be put to death (Deut. 17:12). Anyone who attacks their parent must be put to death (Exodus 21:15).  All who curse their parents must be put to death (Leviticus 20:9).  Anyone who desecrates the Sabbath must be put to death (Exodus 31:14). (Seems SDA's skipped over that part of the Sabbath commandments). If a son is rebellious and stubborn, parents must take him to the priest and the men in town will stone him to death (Deut. 21:18-21). (That would certainly cut down on my psychiatric practice). Obviously I could go on and on. 

Does anyone honestly believe that God handed out these laws back then?  I've heard all the stuff on how this was a different time, primitive people, etc.  But to me, anyone who buys this has to believe it some sort of schizophrenic God who had a rather radical personality shift (like getting on Thorazine) between the Old and New Testament.  

I must admit that I simply can't accept the entire Bible as equally inspired by God.  Of course when I do this, my retired SDA pastor brother, Clarence will say, "How can you decide what to keep and what to throw out. If you start down that road, you'll end up throwing out whatever doesn't fit what you want."  But it seems to me, that those who say they accept the entire Bible as inspired do it in name only.  They too go about dismissing all kinds of texts, saying they are culturally based, symbolic, conditional prophecy, etc.  That kind of hermeneutic exercise and mental gymnastics seems equally subject to human rationalization and even more disingenuous than my position.   

This seems to be especially relevant in view of the current discussion on Batchelor and women in the church that is the hot topic on these blogs.  Few defend his position, which is clearly supported by a specific literal interpretation of Paul's writings.  I'm not for pushing woman to keep their hair long and heads covered, but Paul certainly did.  I also support the notion that woman should be equally involved in God's church, including leadership positions.  But that view can only be arrived at, based on evolving revelation, while choosing to ignore a number of specific texts that don't support this. 

Where does one draw the line here?  If I was gay, given how the modern church has rejected Biblical positions that seem to condone slavery and subjugation of women, I would have little problem dismissing the few texts that condemn my life style, attributing them to the culture of the time, etc.  If my questions here are naive and have already been hashed out in previous blogs, I apologize,  But if not, I'd really like to hear specific responses on the left and the right. 

By what literary or other rationale should we consider that the Bible is all literally true?  If the Bible records the actual words of God and should be taken as factual, then by that criteria The Sumerian Flood story, the Gilgamesh Epic, the other literature of  contemporary cultures, including the Homeric Epics all as literally true.  They incorporate no more nor less of unbelievable tales than does the Bible; yet because it is called by some the "Word of God" none of the writings should be questioned. People have long claimed God as being the authority for their own desires and impulses.

Humans, and not God wrote the Bible and they were not divine but simply humans with all the foibles and perspectives of their surrounding cultues:  they were neither further advanced in knowledge nor given divine intervention to write as they did.

The timeless principles found in Christs' message  should be the focus of all Christian religions. All the convoluted interpretations throughout time have been no more than man's futile attempts to discern the thoughts of a god, or gods.  Viewed in this way, all the chaff and extraneous explanations will be stripped away, leaving only a few broad principles which should guide our lives.  And the writers report that Jesus said that to love one another incorporated all the law, or the Golden Rule.  How can anyone be wrong if these are her guiding principles?  All the rest is of no importance to our lives now and forever.  God never established a religion (in spite of the Hebrew claims).  Religions are all man's puny attempts to discover God and he cannot be captured or owned. 

I had a good friend who tutored me in Hebrew for a couple of years. He was a former hasidic Jew who lost his wife and children due to some kind of religious squabble r/t his hasidic faith. He was supported by a small group of wealthy Jews in Los Angeles with whom he had ongoing studies in Hebrew and OT, especially the Psalms and Esther. He was very fond of both books.

He described Jonah as a "headscratcher"  and continued on in his studies of Psalms. Even though he had studied the Psalms for years, he was unfamiliar with the story of the three Hebrew boys and the fiery furnace found in Daniel. Once he became acquainted with the story, he embraced it and found special comfort in it, particularly the idea that one must be true to conviction and leave the results with Hashem.

He never had to wrestle with the idea of the incarnation of Christ, his resurrection, crucifixion, many miracles, and so forth. He was  a Jew.

He was, however, a man of great faith, within the parameters of his own religious experience. He accepted the fiery furnace  story as historical fact, or at least took the lesson from it as pertinent to his own experience. 

He studied the Bible with a view to formulating faith, not deconstructing it. He was not interested in the Holocaust, Zionism, or visiting Israel. Better  to visit the Jew of the land than the land of the Jew, he quipped.

He believed himself to be a true follower of the Baal Shem Tov.

Clifford Goldstein to me seems to be quite clear in his approach on the Bible. If you take a parable and you liken the bosom of Abraham to the literal then I presume you can do it but then that is the denial of the Bible teaching. He does not mix error with truth and that seems to be just fine by me. Like he says go and get yourself a church where you feel comfortable. There is no problem if you do not believe the Bible then it is fine, go and be where you feel happy.

 Feel free to conform the.

www.BowOfIsrael.co.za

I'm not sure I understand Hansen's point.  There are many inspirational stories in the Bible that have stood the test of time, just as there are many other stories outside the Bible that have inspired and changed lives.  Finding something to be inspiring and life changing is not the same as finding it to be factually true and/or inspired of God.

Elaine, I agree with some of your position and am certainly not a literalist.  But for me, some of your response raises even more questions.  First, regarding the Sumerian Flood story, the Gilgamesh Epic and other tales, while they might not be any more believable than Bible stories, they didn’t claim to be inspired and they weren’t exactly endorsed by Christ in the way He endorsed OT scripture. 

If one assumes that mere humans were involved in all the OT writings (with God having no special role), then how do you resolve the fact that Jesus and others in the NT strongly endorsed the OT, and even used prophesy from there to corroborate the authenticity of Jesus as the Messiah?

I also have problems with your suggestion that Christians need to simply buy off on the broad principles taught by Christ and skip the rest.  Should the timeless messages of Christ be the focus of all Christian religions, or Christ Himself? He and His followers clearly indicated that His admonitions could not be successfully practiced by believers without being daily crucified with Him, dying to self in order than He could fully live in and through us.   He and Paul clearly taught that the goal was not to imitate Him but to allow Him to live in us and carry out His will through us.  Also, I thought the essence of Christianity was a belief that Jesus was and is the Son of God.  If so, it is rather difficult to fully divorce this from the OT that He affirmed while on earth and that foretold of His coming. 

Clifford, I would gather that you accept the entire Bible as literal and inspired.  I'm certainly not trying to trash the Bible or change those who have different beliefs. So for me this is certainly not about changing the church.  This is simply a place to ask questions that I have struggled with for years and none but the most naive would suggest that the Bible doesn't pose significant problems.

I think Erv's point on the Abraham parable was that literalist are not particularly consistent, and will suggest that some passages are parable or symbolic and others not.  How would one know whether this was meant to be literal?  Even if you accept that this is a parable, it certainly raises serious theological questions.  Couldn't Christ have made up a story making the same point that didn't include a message suggesting Abraham was living with angels and the rich man was burning in hell?  While most might see it as a made up story, some would certainly say that by the story line He picked, He was supporting a certainly belief in terms of hell and life after death. 

I just looked up the story of NASA scientists proving that the sun stood still.  This story that has been making the rounds for years is completely bogus.  The following site outlines how the story came to be:

http://www.snopes.com/religion/lostday.asp

Do you also accept all the other commands in the OT (including those which I questioned) as literal and true commands from God?

Stephen, There are numerous references to the mercy and compassion of God to be found in the OT. The Psalms and Jonah, for example. God's willingness to spare Sodom with just the the presence of a few righteous people. 

The problem lies in our own perception of mercy and compassion. In the NT, the massacre that took place in Jerusalem doesn't eclipse the work of Christ, although it would seem to outweigh the good Jesus did, from a strictlly human point of view. 

Maybe the key is found in the expression
"by no means will he [God] clear the guilty." Considering the dimensions of the Holocaust or even the ravages of AIDS in the gay community, in more recent times, it's difficult for me to not consider the judgment of God as a factor.

Certainly some would trivialize such as events as simply "bad luck" or misalignment of the stars. The curses pronounced against Israel in the OT, should they fail to carry out God's plan, are quite extreme, as was the Holocaust.

As for AIDS and the gay community,  Randy Schilts says  that the gay community had been warned  by public health officials of a storm a comin', simply based on microbiology, apart from any theological reference. The laws of nature were being grossly violated.

Scripture is replete with warnings regarding natural disasters in the last times. If Satan had his way, no doubt, things would be much worse than they are. The Bible also tells of scoffers and unbelievers who refuse to recognize the judgment of God in the calamities.

 Noah is a good example of God's mercy at work, whether one accepts the story as literal or not.   There is certainly no question about the mercy of God toward Noah. Jesus said there is a valuable lesson there for those willing to learn it. 

Hansen,

Everyone wants to take at face value the passages of scripture which describe God as full of mercy, love, and compassion. The question is how far you are prepared to go in attributing draconian Mosaic laws and Canaanite genocides committed by the Israelites to divine intention. Since Hutu Christians prayed for divine strength before beginning their massacres, would you accept that the Rwandan genocide against the Tutsis was a divine judgment? Are all viruses judgments from God - or just HIV? How do you deal with the scientific evidence - Gorehysteria notwithstanding - that natural disasters are not increasing in frequency or intensity? Knowledge about them is increasing. And their economic and human toll has certainly intensified as a result of land use. But fundamentalists appear foolish when they selectively, and often erroneously, conscript facts to support their beliefs, ignoring or denying contradictory evidence. 

Literalists, who start down the path of attempting to rationally attribute events in the physical world to divine will, usually end up invalidating their own premises by accusing their skeptics of not having enough faith. Compounding this theological bootstrapping, by implying that skepticism about divine attribution validates the assertion, will, among thoughtful Christians, relegate you to a sit at The Mad Hatters Tea Party.

You contend that we "trivialize" events by finding causes in the natural world and in evil human hearts, rather than attributing them to divine intent. May I suggest that it is you who trivializes God by presuming, like Job's "comforters", to be able to explain horror and calamity through special access to the mind of God.

Hansen,

My question was not so much about whether there was a merciful God in the OT.  Obviously God is portrayed as merciful and loving in many parts of the OT.  But even with that, it's difficult to equate it with what we find in the NT.  How often does the NT contain seemingly over-the-top punishments compared to the OT (like having the town join in stoning to death your incorrigable son) as well as messages that are to be obeyed more out of fear than love?

If I lived in Israel in OT times, based on what is written, I would certainly think that my salvation was almost totally based on works.

In terms of AIDS being somehow a consequence of God's judgement, what about all the non-gays that suffered equally, like hemophiliacs, or the wife who contracted AIDS from her gay husband?

Now I'm still waiting for a conservative to answer specifically questions that were posed in my original post.  Did Saul indeed see a Ghost, were Sabbath breakers put to death, etc?

Nathan, I don't know that the Rwanda anaolgy fits with OT Israel.  The Hutus might have prayed for God's blessing on their killing spree and might have believed He was on their side.  But apologists would say it's not fair to equate their belief or wishful thinking with the OT assertion that God was verbally directing their killing, part of the overall Scripture that Jesus endorsed and is said to be inspired from God.  

I certainly hope that using our God-given reason that causes us to question issues and seeming inconsistencies in the Bible or messages that don't fit with our personal Christian experience is not equated with heresy and threats to faith. 

I am reminded of Thomas Jefferson's famous quote: "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." 

I thank God for a forum that tolerates and encourages open debate and discussion of these questions. 

Erv, you write:

"Mr. Pickle's says I have attacked 'the Bible, Adventism, Ellen White, and Christian (or true) education.' " ...

"Thus when one or two of the elements of the traditional Adventist system are called into question, this is interpreted by people like Mr. Pickle as a broad scaled attack and rejection of the entire fabric of Adventist Christianity."

Perhaps you misunderstood my point.

• I hear you continually attacking the Bible's teaching that God created the world in six actual days, and that the world was destroyed by Noah's Flood. In attacking the Bible's teaching on these topics, I hear you attacking the Bible.
• Not once have I seen you acknowledge the simple truth expressed by Ellen White, that the idea that the days of creation were not actual days is a most dangerous form of infidelity. I hear you instead saying that she was wrong about that, and thus I hear you attacking Ellen White.
• Whenever I hear you promoting the idea that education in the sciences leads one to conclude that the biblical account of creation is wrong, then I hear you attacking Christian education, since true education teaches the student to submit his or her findings to the supreme authority of God's Word as revealed in Scripture.
• Lastly, when I hear you do these things, I hear you undermining Adventism itself, since Adventism maintains that (a) the Bible is the final authority, (b) Jesus testified by His Spirit through Ellen White, and (c) the fourth commandment commanding the observance of the seventh day in opposition to the customs and traditions of the world is based on the fact that God created the world in six days and rested the seventh.

Thus, we aren't talking about attacking "one or two of the elements of the traditional Adventist system."

The use of the word "traditional" itself could be interpreted as an attempt at spin, since we are talking about what Scripture declares, not some denomination's traditions.

"Was Saul visited by a Ghost?"

"Did the sun stand still?"

"Did Jonah live in the belly of a fish for three days?"

"Does anyone honestly believe that God handed out these laws back then?"

"But to me, anyone who buys this has to believe it some sort of schizophrenic God who had a rather radical personality shift (like getting on Thorazine) between the Old and New Testament."

Thanks, Pickle....someone finally responds to the specifics.

As previously stated, I don't have a problem with the notion that the God of the OT was also portrayed as merciful God.  It's just that if one takes all of it literally, the notion that God would condemn to death my oppositional defiant child is rather hard to swallow.

I had already considered Ananias and Saphira. However. the fact that this is one of the few examples of this level of divine judgement one can point to in the NT certainly contrast rather dramatically with the OT that is replete with such stories.  Also, if divine judgement as portrayed in the OT is an accurate portrayal, why was this aspect so glaringly absent from Christ ministry on earth?

The other issue is with how one applies the OT.  The SDA church chooses to apply parts of the OT, such on the ten commandments, while ignoring other parts, such as the death penalty for Sabbath breakers.  How does one decide what parts apply?

One of my patients is a Jehovah's Witness.  They choose the no blood passage and take it quite literally.  Most Christians believe this is rather misguided, but in fairness, what is the basis literalists use to say that this is an inaccurated interpretation and application of the Scripture?  

Nathan, Having spent a few years working in several prisons in California, my views regarding the administration of justice  are probably different than those without similar experience. I also spent a few years directly involved in the care of AIDS patients. I was personally acquainted not only with hemophiliac victims, but some of the very few women, in those days, who were infected. I also met one or two individuals who claimed to have innocently acquired the disease from contaminated insulin needles, blood transfusions, reading a newspaper, and so forth.

Just the other day, I saw a young boy of about 8 years spit in the face of an adult woman. The boy's mother thought it was somewhat funny. In this culture, that type of thing is viewed differently than in American culture.

If an 8 year old boy, as an act of defiance, spit in your face and went uncorrected by his parent, what type of contribution would you expect him to make to society in the future? When will he start using his fists and then a gun, to express his displeasure at authority?

I don't consider the laws of Moses draconian at all. I consider them, given the context, to have  beeen  appropriate to manage and shape a new society from  debased slaves. [edit]

As for natural disasters, calamities, and misfortunes, Jesus himself didn't try to explain the reasons for such. In the opening verses of Luke 13, the very issue came up. As I understand his remarks, the gist of what he said was that all of us deserve whatever bad things happen to the few. The same horrible fate awaits every unrepentant sinner, whether by calamities in this life or divine judgment.

Jesus experienced the calamity of a crucifixion, certainly more of a catastrophe than any injustice or natural disaster which has impacted the lives of sinful individuals or nations in the past. 

I would have to review the subject of natural disasters in Scripture, to discover whether the Bible actually says they will increase or just take place. If Scripture does indeed say that natural disasters will increase, and science contradicts that assertion, it's easy for me to say that I will go with Jesus. I simply do not believe what science says if it contradicts what Scripture, correctly understood, is saying. 

Paul addressed intellectuals, philosophers, sophisticates, and so forth on Mars Hill. The best and brightest among Greek philosophers and many  religious Jews, in other contexts, rejected the gospel story. The Greeks derided Paul as a "ragpicker," rejecting not only his teaching but him as a person. The Jews would have murdered him.

i don't have a problem with the Bible. "Science"?  Well, that's another matter.

Ervin,

I would like to focus on just one part of your post. But before that: I’m very sure that Elder Goldstein knows the difference between literal Bible texts, and prophetic symbolism. After all, he came into this movement by studying Daniel 2.

You wrote: “It seems to me that anyone who says that they interpret the Scriptures “literally” are always very selective in what they include in what is to be interpreted as literal. For example, when Saul was visited by the ghost of Samuel, it could not be, of course, Samuel’s “literal”ghost since we don’t believe that dead people can come back as ghosts. However,let’s use the principle that Elder Goldstein likes--that the Bible interprets itself. A straightforward reading of this passage in the Book of Samuel does not give any hint that whoever wrote this narrative was stating anything else than that Saul had a conversation with the ghost of dead person—plain andsimple.”

It seems you missed the point of what Elder Goldstein is saying here. He said: “that the Bible interprets itself.” When we do this, we don’t end our study at this passage in 1 Samuel 28, we go to other scriptures to interpret this, such as this one:

Ecc 9:5  For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not anything, neither have they anymore a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

Ecc 9:6  Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they anymore a portion forever in anything that is done under the sun.

Then, our understanding should begin to tell us that it was not Samuele who appeared, but it was a demon.

We can also go to Ellen Whites writings for further clarification and more Scripture. We should take all that the Bible says about a topic before drawing our conclusions.

So Elder Goldstein is correct. If the Bible we verses read are not symbolic or figurative, then they are most certainly literal. God has not made it hard for us to understand His word. The question is whether we humbly come to God for truth, or do we set ourselves above God and wrest the Scriptures to our own possible destruction. It would be utterly foolish to vary the rules of proper exegesis upon “selected texts.”

2Pe 1:20  Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

 2Pe 1:21  For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Pickle,

Why is evolution the most dangerous form of infidelity? Science utilizes experimentation to test hypotheses and does not explain the data by invoking supernatural causes because science only assumes natural causes. Thus, it would appear that you should condemn the scientific method as being the most dangerous form of infidelity. But, that would cause problems in teaching of science in our SDA colleges. I find it interesting that the scientific method has been shown to measurably improve the temporal lives of humans. The list of examples of how systematic science has improved human and animal life and saved lives is endless.

The Bible speaks of Gods role in the world and life beyond this one. These are theological topics and reserved for that type of classroom endeavor. To teach that there is a supreme creator is not a place for the science classroom as science cannot test such a notion. The two topics can exist side by side but the venue should be separate.

Dr Taylor's posts do not necessarily lessen the "credibility" of A-Today as the purpose of A-Today is to deal with changing beliefs within the SDA community. If you define "credibility" as paying continued homage to fundamental beliefs then yes, A-Today may have a credibility problem to fundamentalists.

What I say below, I say not of you in particular. I simply respond here to this entire page, but link to you because you are the one who poses the view that wisdom is attained through the letters behind a name.

I used to believe as you do, for "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child...." Then, a few years ago, "I put away childish things" (1 Cor 13:11). God awakened me from my slumber and awoke me out of Laodiceanism. 

I am currently obtaining a master's degree from a secular institution under a full scholarship and they are already recruiting me for a doctorate because I keep earning 100% in all of my classes and I am more than halfway through. Nevertheless, I consider myself wise ONLY as long as the Scripture is my foundation and guide in all aspects of my life, for "The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise" (Prov 12:15).

Job 12:13  With him is wisdom and strength, he hath counsel and understanding.
Job 12:14  Behold, he breaketh down, and it cannot be built again: he shutteth up a man, and there can be no opening.
Job 12:15  Behold, he withholdeth the waters, and they dry up: also he sendeth them out, and they overturn the earth.
Job 12:16  With him is strength and wisdom: the deceived and the deceiver are his.
Job 12:17  He leadeth counsellors away spoiled, and maketh the judges fools.

I'm sure none of this means a thing to you, because you do not regard the Bible. I do hope, however, that others may read it and not fall victim to their own foolish pride. Letters behind a name mean little more than a piece of paper and that paper is only as valuable as the knowledge upon which it was based. Unfortunately for us, since we earn it from a secular institution, it often means not only no spiritual wisdom gained, but that we lose whatever true wisdom we may have had in the process.

Deu 32:28  For they are a nation void of counsel, neither is there any understanding in them.

My undergraduate studies were performed at an SDA school, but even that education was secular. Spiritual Israel is following the path of her predecessor and I am no longer confident to send my children to our schools (btw, I hail from a fairly long ancestry of adventists, but I was the first to wake up). In the meantime, I continue my studies determined not to lose sight of the true Teacher. I could stop the pursuit entirely, but by achieving those letters behind the name, perhaps more fools who are wise in their own eyes will give heed to the warnings I share from the only source of knowledge that means a thing.

As far as taking the Bible literally goes, if you see it as contradictory, it is only because your eyes are not opened to discern spiritual things.

Heb 6:18  ... it was impossible for God to lie...

2 Tim 3:16  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Therefore believe in Him, but also BELIEVE Him. 

If you do not understand such basic truth, how then shall I explain to you what you see as contradictions?

Heb 5:12  For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
Heb 5:13  For every one that useth milk is unskillful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
Heb 5:14  But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

I leave you with a warning so urgent that it was recorded nearly word-for-word twice: "There is a way which [that] seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death" (Prov 14:12 and Prov 16:25).

"waiting", as you hail upon us, consider that the author of this blog has both letters behind his name and the credibility one earns by conducting and publishing peer-reviewed scientific research.  It is one thing to smugly hide in one's cocoon and say that you have the truth but only those endowed with wisdom from God can see it.  It is quite another to put truth out there for the world to challenge and to hold a position that can withstand critique by informed peers.  That seems to me to be a more useful way of "knowing".  Simply believing something because you have committed to a literal reading of a text does not guarantee truth; otherwise, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc., would agree.  Interestingly, they CAN all agree about matters of science.