I was told something rather shocking in SS class this morning. That PUC and La Sierra do not teach the literal 7 day creation week but rather a prophetic long time week. Southern University still teaches 7 literal days.

Does anyone know any more about this? If this is true, do you know WHY PUC and/or LaSierra would go against SDA fundamental beliefs?

Just wondering. Enquiring minds gotta know. :-)

When I asked about Columbia Union College's science faculty, about 5-10 years ago, I was told about 50% of them thought evolution was probably the correct description of the history of the earth

The Faith and Science Conferences showed that there are lots of unresolved issues in the SDA church in this area - a lot more than is usually publically acknowledged.

/Bevin

I corrisponded with the head of the science department in one of our esteemed univeristies after reading Bevin's claim that 50% of our professors believe in evolution. He did not want me to disclose his name on this forum.

According to him, Adventist science teachers are under a lot of preassure to believe the 7-day creation week and the 6,000 year-old earth. He told me that most in fact do believe that and he would not put any trust in the 50% number that Bevin throws around. However, he said that there are a number that do not believe in a young earth and he is of the opinion that they should be allowed to hold their beliefs and still teach at our universities.

I don't have a problem with professors not believing in the Biblical creation as long as they are not teaching contrary to it in the classroom. As far as I know, they are not doing that.

There should be further qualification about the "young earth" and "old earth" theories. By this I mean that a person may, for instance, believe that God created the matter of this planet eons ago, "in the beginning," yet believe that life on this planet was created just as the Genesis account states it. IOW, young life, old earth. I would venture to say that most SDA scientists would fall in this category.

Gerry

That is why I phrased it as

Once you actually get into the science, the rocks themselves clearly show the presence of life on the planet.

You can't duck the issue by saying "the rocks are old, but life is young"

As was mentioned in the Origins forum, the "life is young" creationists do not have an explanation for how the White Cliffs of Dover came into existence. The formation that they are part of simply contains far too much sea shells etc for an easy "made by the Flood" explanation to be viable.

/Bevin

For those who do not believe the Genesis story that God created this world in 6 days (and I do not question the fact that the earth as such most probably was created at the same time as the other planets in our solar system were created). I would like to know your thinking on the following questions.

1. We come to Christ as sinful beings, dependent on His creative power to change us here, and then re-create us - instantly - when He comes. Or is the re-creation of our mortal bodies going to take a long period of time.

2. When Jesus comes, He is going to raise those who had died in the hope of the resurrection. Many will have been dead for thousands of years, and so their dust will be just part of the earth. How long is it going to take for Jesus to re-create those billions of people? How long was the "day" when He first created Adam and Eve? If it took that long to create 2 people, how about the time taken to create ?????? people?

3. Will the re-creation of this earth, with plants, birds, fish, and animals, take a long period of time? such as the proponents of a long period of the original creation? Or will the same God somehow have found out how to create in an instant?

4. If we sincerely believe that God took a long time to create this world in the first place, why should we believe that He is capable of doing it in a short time when He re-creates?

5. Or is this proof that "practice makes perfect"? that God can do on the second time round what He could not do at Creation?

I eagerly await your replies.

Beryl

"I don't have a problem with professors not believing in the Biblical creation as long as they are not teaching contrary to it in the classroom. As far as I know, they are not doing that."

I have a problem with this,


olger

I agree with you olger. I would also hope that anyone who believes in something stands up for what they believe.

pkrause

By the time our kids reach college age, it's my opinion that they should be able to learn to think for themselves.... to form their own set of beliefs based upon various facts and theories to which they're exposed while in college. They can no longer be expected to be clones of their parents in this respect; it's a necessary part of their passage into full maturity.

I say this because of, and in spite of, my sadness at the fact that my elder son disagrees with the "short chronology" Creation as set forth in Genesis. But he is still my loving and loved son, the strength of our family in so many ways. And if he were to become a carbon copy of me, he would be denying the freedom of will with which God created him; and he would be an immature human being. Boys especially, need to 'cut the apron strings' if they are to develop into strong leaders of their own new families. I pray for my son daily, and his other good attributes keep reminding me that he is worth saving. I even think that down deep he still believes what he learned at home and in church school and Sabbath school.

But college is the place our kids go to develop their life's career, decide on their life partner, and on their religious faith. If it's a little different from what their teachers teach -- then that shows me the college curriculum is doing what it's supposed to do: teach the students to think for themselves.

[--And for us, as laypersons, to try to monitor the teaching of our Adventist college professors--who are each specialists in their own fields--is ridiculous. We have no training in those disciplines. IMHO it's only the work of the devil when busybodies from the constituency go on witch hunts in the college religion departments. We have no business telling others what to do; it just displays our own ignorance.]

Yes, it is a sad fact, but I am not surprised. This has been warned since the beginning that it will be coming. That is the reason why the three angels message rings so clearly:
"Then I saw another angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach to those who dwell on the earth—to every nation, tribe, tongue, and people— 7 saying with a loud voice, “Fear God and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgment has come; and worship Him who made heaven and earth, the sea and springs of water.” Revelation 14:6,7

I knew that the Roman Catholic Church will not spare any effort in trying to infiltrate the Remnant Church, but I it very sad to think that it has come so far. God save us, because otherwise none even of the very elect will stand pure to the faith of Jesus when He comes.