I recently read Creation Reconsidered: Scientific, Biblical, and Theological Perspectives, a collection of papers presented at the Conference on Geology and the Biblical Record in August 1985. The book itself was fifteen years in the making, so where necessary, authors updated their work before publication in 2000.

If you're a Seventh-day Adventist and young-earth creationist who'd like to learn about other views of faith and science within the SDA tradition, read this book. You may find it helpful on several levels:

• There's a bigger picture here than one will find in mainstream SDA media, e.g. the Adventist Review and Clifford Goldstein. There's a bigger picture here than one will find in mainstream SDA media, e.g. the Adventist Review and Clifford Goldstein.
• Several SDA scientists affirm the geologic column.
• Several SDA academics propose other ways of reading Scripture that do not demand a literal reading of the first chapters of Genesis.
• I found parts of my journey aptly described in Graeme Sharrock's chapter "Faith Development in a Scientific Culture." You might, too.
• Some SDAs are more comfortable having their world views challenged by other SDAs. There is much common ground among the various parts of the church; it's easier to hop than to take a plunge (plunging is not for the faint-hearted but may be unavoidable for some).

The book itself is difficult to find online; however, you may purchase a copy on CD for US$10 via the contact form at Spectrum (not a secure way to send your credit card number, by the way. Be safe.). Reading it on your computer isn't ideal, but it beats the alternative.

There are a lot of Christians that embrace theistic evolution. There are many that embrace the secret rapture, Sunday sacredness , original sin and the immortality of the soul too. There are many false doctrines that abound within Christianity so just because someone believes something and calls themselves a Christian doesn't mean it is truth.



Of course there is. There are many issues that mainstream Adventism doesn't embrace. Theistic evolution is one of them.



I do not know one person that denies the existence of the geological column.



I am not sure what that means. Adventism embraces Sola Scriptura. I am not aware of any of our academies or colleges teaching anything outside of Sola Scriptura. I could be wrong but they certainly would be outside of mainstream Adventism.



I am open to anyone challenging my beliefs but it needs to be done with the Bible, not some theory of man that today is scientific and tomorrow may well be laughed at.

Well Vera, like Shane said, there are many Christians who have various beliefs. There may be many SDA's who have various beliefs, across the spectrum. That does not make such beliefs true. The test is always, and most be, 'sola scriptura.' Take the Bible as it reads. A literal reading of Genesis 1 and 2 is called for. Recognize that God is able to do things that science may not understand or recognize.

Dave

Why is a literal reading of Genesis 1 and 2 called for?

The bigger question is why someone would not want to read Genesis literally? If we believe in Sola Scriptura, there is no reason to read Genesis any other way.

If you have to read Genesis 1 and 2 literally, you have to read the entire Bible literally.

For one thing, as a matter of accuracy in making observations. Take the evidence as it reads. As a point of interest, KIM that God the Omnipotent was and is able to do the acts described in Gen. 1 and 2. God is bigger than our science or our understanding.

Dave

Correct, unless a passage states that it is a 'parable,' for example, or some other intended application. Do you see a problem with reading the entire Bible in such a light?

Dave

The Bible should be read, in as much as possible, as it was intended to be read by its author. If the author intended it to be read as prophecy, it should be read as prophecy. If the prophecy is intended to be symbolic, like beasts and horns, dragons and stars, then it should be read symbolically. If it is meant to be read literally, like the coming of Christ and persecution of the saints, then it should be read literally.

This is also true of parables and poetry. If it was meant to be understood literally it should be read literally. If symbolic than symbolically. The Song of Solomon is symbolic poetry. Job and much of the Psalms are literal poetry. The parable of the Good Samaritan was a literal parable. The parable of the Pearl of Great Price was a symbolic parable.

There is nothing in Genesis that indicates it is not to be read literally. In fact, the evidence is quite the contrary. The evidence indicates that the prophets, apostles and Christ read Genesis literally.

The short answer to your question is yes.

The longer answer is not only too long for this format but is still being formed, and I may very well blog it shortly.

In a roundabout way, however, I can tell you the reason for the short answer.

Do Bible writers consistently and explicitly signal the type of writing they're about to do? If not, should Bible readers, using a variety of methods, use their best judgment to make that determination? Are Bible readers who hold to sola scriptura already doing that in spite of their best efforts?



Here, permit me to share a quote from Paradigms on Pilgrimage: Creationism, Paleontology and Biblical Interpretation:


Which might be an interesting place to start if you're looking for a different understanding of Genesis.

It also underlines the fact that sola scriptura notwithstanding, we all bring our worldviews to our reading of the Bible.

Problem is that chapter one and chapter two do not agree in a literal reading. We have to start explaining right away to make the first and second chapters agree.

mel

The Bible only contradicts itself when one assumes each and every word was inspired by God. The message is inspired but the words which were chosen to express the message were chosen by erring and sinful men.

The only words written by God Himself were the Ten Commandments and MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN. We find God's creation account in the Fourth Commandment which clears up any misunderstanding some may have about the creation week recorded in Genesis.