1st Quarter 2013 - ORIGINS

Welcome to the 1st Quarter Topic for our Adult Sabbath School Study and Discussion as we prepare for our Adult Sabbath School Class each Sabbath.

Here is the link to the study material for this quarter:

http://www.ssnet.org/lessons/13a/

Feel free to discuss this here in this thread.

Any thoughts on the first two lessons in this 1st quarter of 2013?

1) The Bible, properly understood is truth.

2) My understanding of the Bible may not be truth.

3)I do not expect that science will agree with the Bible.

4) The focus in the Bible is on the activity of God in human life.

5) The Bible is not a textbook of science--nuclear physics or calculus, for example.

6) The fundamental Biblical statement in regard to origin is: God created everything that exists.

7) Beyond # 6, the focus on the Bible in on the creation of Earth (and our solar system) and not on the Universe.

8) The chronological records of the Bible were not written for the purpose of giving us dates for Earth history.

9) Therefore, the Bible cannot be used as a calendar of Earth time.

10) I believe in a 7-day period of 24 hours each during which time God organized the Earth into a life filled planet. But, I am open to being shown that the Bible does not teach this.

11) I believe in a global flood (Just do not tell me it was universal.). But, I am open to being shown that the Bible does not teach this.

12) I believe that the current typical debate between creationists and evolutionists is so emotionally loaded that most often neither understands the other.

13) I believe that the term "evolution" includes several aspects, some of which are true and not against the Bible, some of which are against what I believe to be Biblical truth.

14)I believe that it is possible to hold some versions of evolution and remain a good SDA. I know people who are such in my opinion.

Well, Daryl, I suppose that my comments here will engender some discussion. fine. I only ask that in commenting on my post, please do not misrepresent where I am. E.g. Do not call me a theistic evolutionist. I am not.

Parenthitical note on the Big Bang:

1) The Big Bang is said to have occurred at a discrete point, potentially prior to the creation of time.

2) Science can only look back in time to the Big Bang and cannot look prior to that.

3) Science explains the past by the present.

4) At the point of the Big Bang, the present laws of physics did not exist. They were created following the Big Bang.

4) Therefore, the present is clearly inadaquate to explain a past prior to the development of the present laws of physics.

Here is the link to this weeks lesson.......

The Creation Completed http://www.ssnet.org/lessons/13a/less03.html

This weeks lesson brings up a interesting question, how do we know the Creation days were literal........?

So how is this important, well understanding the Biblical Creation account as literal has far reaching implications that most Christians or even Adventist dont discern...

I came across a discussion on whether understanding the Biblical Creation account as literal or non-literal, affects our knowledge of the nature of sin. The focus was on Creation (chapters 1-3) with some reaching into the topics discussed in chapters 4-11. When you read the Bible or any book for that matter, you must look to see if the author intend it to be fiction or auctual events. One must first demonstrate from the given text that the author did not intend for anyone to read his words as a literal historical account. Any assertion that states that a non-literal reading is the most appropriate reading must provide evidence of specific figurative indicators in the text such as metaphors, similes allegories, hyperbole, symbolism and such.

A non-literal approach, is a significant issue doctrinally, as the entire book Genesis is the seedbed for all of the theology that follows. The Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, is a system of progressive revelation that builds upon itself. Meaning that Abraham built upon the revelation given to Noah and thus had more light than Noah, Moses built upon the revelation given to Abraham and thus had more light than Abraham, David built on/had more light Moses, Isaiah built on/had more light than David, and the apostles had more than the prophets of the Old Testament. Thus, what was said in earlier parts of the Bible forms the foundation upon which more light was revealed to later generations.

So how did the succeeding generations of those who were used by God has His human authors of Scripture, see the creation account. Did Moses, Jesus, David, or any of the prophets or apostles view the Creation account in Genesis as a non-literal account?

The Bible is set up in such a manner that there is no single verse, passage, chapter or book that contains all of the truth on a given matter. In this way, God designed the Bible to be studied and searched out and designed it so that all of the doctrines of Scripture are interlocked with each other. The same passage that is talking about Creation or the Holy Spirit may also shed light on other doctrines and so one cannot do violence to a single subject in a single passage without the effects of that act radiating into other areas of Scripture. God send it to us so it could be discerned but precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little and there a little, with the Holy Spirit unveiling it to our understanding.

The Bible tells us it figuritive language is being used or when something is a vision, allegory or parable, symbol or metaphor. It does not leave it up to us to guess. Absent those textual indicators, the default understanding of any given text in Scripture is literal which means that a text is understood within the framework the author intends. It means to read the text with the object that the author has in view and not to assign any values to the text on our own. A non-literal approach makes the text subject to the whims of the reader and erodes the authority of the author.

So a non-literal approach to Genesis 1-11 devalues the authority of Word of God as final arbiter on all matters of Christian faith and practice. The Bible says that God magnifies His Word above His own Name (Ps. 138:2) and so He places a high premium on His Word and to devalue its authority is, by extension, to devalue the authority of God, Himself. This is no trivial, "take-it or-leave-it matter." God takes His Word very seriously, and so should man, His creation.

As you can see, if Genesis is not literal then the Creator is diminished, the Sabbath is more Moses imprint than Gods, and sin was about a snake that charmed a woman rather than the fall of mankind.

Here is the link to this week's study to be discussed in our various Sabbath Schools on January 26th.

http://www.ssnet.org/lessons/13a/less04.html

The topic is "Creation, a Biblical Theme."

Memory Text: “Then I saw another angel flying in midair, and he had the eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth—to every nation, tribe, language and people. He said in a loud voice, ‘Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgment has come. Worship him who made the heavens, the earth, the sea and the springs of water’” (Revelation 14:6-7, NIV).

This week we will look at various references that point back to the Genesis account and show how other Bible writers understood it as a literal depiction of human origins.

I like the way the lesson draws attention to our Creator in the Three Angels message.It is important to us that Jesus Christ is the eternal WORD who creates and re-creates.

Prescott was a Christ centered evangelist and preacher in Australia who studied the Bible together with Ellen White as she was preparing to write the Desire of Ages - the story of Jesus Christ - which had a great impact on the SDA thinking after that.

Here is the link to this week's study to be discussed in our various Sabbath Schools on January 26th.

http://www.ssnet.org/lessons/13a/less05.html

The topic is "Creation & Morality."

Here is the link to this week's study to be discussed in our various Sabbath Schools on February 9th.

http://www.ssnet.org/lessons/13a/less06.html

The topic is "Creation and the Fall."

Snippets from Sabbath Afternoon:

Here is the link to this week's study to be discussed in our various Sabbath Schools on February 16th.

http://www.ssnet.org/lessons/13a/less07.html

The topic is "Through a Glass, Darkly."

Memory Text: “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: ‘He catches the wise in their craftiness’” (1 Corinthians 3:19, NIV).

A scientist once challenged the need for God; he argued that he could create humanity just as well as any God could. God said, “Okay, go ahead and do it.” The scientist began to gather some dirt, but God said, “Wait a minute. Make your own dirt!”

Though this story is only a fable, the point is clear: God is the only One who can create from nothing. God made all the material of the universe, including our world, our possessions, and our bodies. He is the legitimate owner of every thing.

Here is the link to this week's study to be discussed in our various Sabbath Schools on February 23rd.

http://www.ssnet.org/lessons/13a/less08.html

The topic is "Jesus, Provider and Sustainer."

Here is the link to this week's study to be discussed in our various Sabbath Schools on March 2nd.

http://www.ssnet.org/lessons/13a/less09.html

The topic is "Marriage: A Gift From Eden."

Genesis 2:18 seems to be an important text in connection with this lesson. A quotation by Ellen White found in the Teacher's Quarterly appears to support this rendering of that verse:

Genesis 2:18

Expanded Bible (EXB)
The First Woman

18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper [C in the sense of a partner or ally; the word does not imply subordinate status; see Ps. 79:9] who ·is right for [is suitable for; corresponds with] him.”

The same Hebrew word for "helper" is used here:

Psalm 79:9

Expanded Bible (EXB)

9 God our ·Savior [Victor], help us
·so people will praise you [L for the glory of your name].
·Save [Protect] us and ·forgive [atone for] our sins
·so people will honor you [L for your name].

While studying last week's lesson together my wife took a peek at this lesson. Before we knew it we had read through the lesson on marriage, taking turns like usually.

We discovered that this lesson contains the principles on which our marriage is based, and which, after seven years of marriage, still makes ours an exceptionally happy marriage.We prayed about it, and we still keep praying, and the Lord answers our prayers. That does not mean it is perfect.

Another secret of happiness is that I frequently say with a smile and emphasis: "Ida, I love you so much!"

She reacts with the sweetest smile imaginable and says: "I know you do, and I love you too!" That prevents any misunderstandings, and we are even more determine to keep on in love.

I read this to my wife before posting it, and she agrees with this description

This week's study probably doesn't even speak of this, however, I don't really know, as I haven't read each and every day of it yet, but here I go anyway.

Marriage was a gift of Eden to Adam in the creation of Eve from his own rib.

Sabbath was also a gift to both Adam and Eve.

After the Fall, both continued, however, only the Sabbath will continue for all eternity, but not the gift of marriage.

Why doesn't the gift of marriage also continue for all eternity?

We understand marriage also wouldn't continue for ever here on earth.
God commanded Adam and Eve to fill the earth. After the earth was full, it seems the human race would be taken to heaven to re-populate it. They would become similar to the angels and, therefore, would no longer marry.

God created man for His own glory, that after test and trial the human family might become one with the heavenly family. It was God's purpose to re-populate heaven with the human family, if they would show themselves obedient to His every word. {CC 21.5}

It is interesting reading various translations and editions of the lesson this week, including Ellen White comments on the texts. It is clear that Ellen warns against using Scripture to prove that man was to have a dominating role over the wife.

Reading some of the EGW comments I get the impression that the text stating that because of sin the husband was to rule, that this was really a result of sin. Man would discover that he was physically stronger and get tempted to use this fact to dominate over his wife. With his strength he could not only subdue her, but get the idea that he also had the strength to subdue and sin against other women. This is really the curse of sin and this sin is not to flourish within our church.

This is a great warning to us.

Which statement of hers are you looking at?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Such as AH 117.

There is also in her writings a warning against using Scripture to prove that man has a dominant role.

And where is that statement?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Mrs. White was a staunch supporter of men being the head of the house, as the following statement from her pen reveals.



The beauty of Mrs. White's writings is their balance. She is against tyranny, and says that tyrannical men have no right to speak of their headship. She does not, by so saying, mean that they have not the headship of the home, simply she is saying that they do not exercise it properly and in the love of Christ. When a man has Christ, and God's love refining and softening his character, he is able to be the proper head of the home that God wishes him to be.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Here is another clarifying statement that demonstrates that the man being the head of the home is God's plan, not simply an after-effect of sin. God intends for it to be thus ordered, in order to institute peace in the home.



She laments, as we all should, that men have gone to extremes in exercising their superiority. But she acknowledges that it was God who established men's superiority, and as in the statement I posted earlier, she tells men that it is their duty to maintain their position as head of the home "with all meekness, yet with decision." In modern vernacular, those last two words would be converted to "decisively."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Since you have the ability to find all of those statements, you should also be able to find some of the statements which balance them so beautifully.

Johann,

I think it would be futile to try to find the statement you are claiming, considering it would contradict her other statements and the Bible.

God established the headship of men over their women. It is biblical.

Instead of trying to find Mrs. White saying that the Bible should not be used to support it, why not see if the Bible does support it? If the Bible supports something, it would be contradictory for Mrs. White to say it doesn't, right? I don't expect that she would have so egregiously erred as that.

Here are some of those passages:



These are but a portion of the texts one might gather on the topic. Others include the qualifications of elders and deacons, including that they are men who rule their households well.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Quite interesting. Here Ellen White states that it is Christ who is the head of the church, and not man. Then that man is the head of the home when he is thus refined in God's love and also willing to yield to the wishes of his wife. It is a balance which works both ways.

Just last night we heard on the news that society has in recent years become so corrupt that men use their physical strength to show their superiority and ability to dominate over girls and women all around them.

From our living room window we see the bright lights in a large prison. Every ninth prisoner there is incarcerated for sexual crimes against women, one of them a 14-year old girl I know. Are any of those criminals Seventh-day Adventists? Unfortunately. You may never have served as a pastor.

One of the "saints" came to me as his pastor when he had served for two years in prison, claiming he was innocent, and lamenting the lacking support of his fellow believers. They should have told the judge what a saint he was. There was a girl sent to his farm from an Adventist mother in a city so she could be in safety from the city corruption.

Fortunately his wife was able to do all the chores with the cows so he could stay in bed with the girl to protect her. The time had come when the girl needed to know if she was sexually mature, so they prayed together to be protected from sin as they experimented together - just for her sake. So there was no sin involved.

I came to the district about the time he got out of prison. He explained to me what a good Bible teacher he was, and could not understand why he had not been re-installed as a Sabbath School superintendent and teacher. It was my duty, as his pastor, to see to it that he got his old jobs back in church.

This is just one of many similar experiences I have had through the years. A conference president once told me that one of the most difficult parts of his responsibility was dealing with saints in the church who were great spiritual leaders, but who used their male headship roles to have sexual relationships with young girls in their own families.

This is not a local phenomena because I have experienced similar things in several countries where I have worked.

It is about time that some of the saints wake up to the realities in life and stop supporting sin in the church with some seemingly supporting quotations to please the sinfulness of humanity.

May God have mercy!

Johann,

I see many good points in what you have posted. I also see a trend in society to vilify men and to "angelify" women. If you see the commercials that are becoming prevalent, men are always made to appear foolish, and women wise. This is having an effect on society's views.

Consider this: In light of the lessons this quarter on "origins," where did sin originate on our planet? Was it not with Eve? And how did she sin? Was it not on the point of appetite?

Eve lusted for food.

But Adam did not care for the fruit Eve brought him. Adam had no interest in that fruit at all. He did not desire it. His sin was not on account of lust for the fruit. He wanted her.

To this day, women tend to have appetites for food, and men have appetites for women.

Here's where those shouting "equality" should sit up and take notice: Why are prisons filled with "sexual sinners" but not filled with "food abusers?" Why do we criminalize a man's sin, but gloss over a woman's?

I will readily acknowledge that there are degrees of sin, and some sins are worse than others. But when we as a society fail to rebuke certain classes of sin, we do not realize how the evils of those sins end up affecting everyone.

Take a look at the following statement, for example.



So Mrs. White tells us that diet is the beginning of sin. How many women, over their own appetites, feed their menfolk that which in turn encourages them in sin?

It is the same story as in the Garden of Eden. Only, the men seem to get all the blame.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Green,

I also see some interesting points in your post, but I do detect some serious danger signals. When reading your post I see that you are reading Scripture the same way as I noticed Samuel Koranteng Pipim was doing when he started his writing, seemingly under the supervision of Sam Bacchiocchi.

All I want to say now is that this kind of interpretation seems to be in harmony with the fundamental protestant view of the Image of the Beast, and in opposition to the method used by Ellen G White..

This is, to me, a serious issue, and I appeal to you to examine seriously what you are doing, in earnest prayer for guidance of the Holy Spirit, which is essential to understanding Scripture.

You do use frequent quotation from Ellen White, but in my view you omit so much of her balanced view.

If I start looking for quotations to balance your view, it will only result in useless discussions, so you will just have to do it on your own.

Unfortunately Pipim's idea of verbal inspiration, where his Pentecostal view is combined with the ideas of Samuelle Bacchiocchi has achieved a great influence within modern liberal Adventism , so that most of its adherents do hot even notice it. There must be a reason why both the Michigan conference and the Lake Unikon Conference has warned the world church against his writings and work, and this warning is also given by Seminary teachers at Andrews University, something that could be verified.

One of the great dangers lies in the undermining of the influence of Ellen White in our church in the final days of history.

Johann,

I suppose you would like to think your views are more balanced than mine. Doesn't everyone think that he or she is in the more favorable position? It is human nature. We all judge ourselves better than others by default. This is an effect of sin. It is an exhibition of selfishness.

As leader of an institution, I chose to focus on balance. To me, that meant not enforcing my ideas upon the staff who were under me. While I encouraged, I did not micro-manage. Some of the staff thrived in this environment, for it gave them liberty to use their skills as they best knew how. Other staff lacked structure, and did very little, for no one was giving them a specific list of job duties.

Balance on this sinful planet is hard to find. Mrs. White said that even as many as a few persons on a committee represented a "kingly power." Kings are not balanced.

Balance is being able to hear all sides of a matter before passing judgment on it. Imbalance is the closure of the mind to others' viewpoints and focusing solely on what one wishes to think.

I have done my best to support my views upon the solid foundation of scripture. It is more balanced than I am. I notice, however, that many rely on public opinion, popular opinion, or their own ideas to define truth. This is dangerous, not just in my opinion, but in fact.

Furthermore, it is dangerous to form up an opinion based upon what someone else does or does not believe. If you choose to cast the burden of finding the truth on a matter upon someone else, you are shirking your own moral duty. If one is not able to support his or her beliefs from a "thus saith the Lord," it is their duty to study the Bible and to "be ready to give an answer to every man that asketh."

I have noticed, Johann, that your focus is often upon what I would call "truth by association." I would propose to you that truth should not be determined by who said it or for what reason. It should be determined by whether or not it agrees with the Word of God. Samuel Koranteng-Pipim and Samuel Bacchiocchi both spoke much truth. I have not always agreed with everything they have said. But truth is truth, regardless of its source, and in order to determine whether they have spoken truth, one must necessarily compare it to the standard of the Bible.

Remember, the 1888 message was truth, even though both Jones and Waggoner later apostatized. Truth remains truth even when its standard bearer fails or is deceased.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

If I refer to other persons it is not to discover truth or error by association. It is only to help others see my point of view, and to understand the history of certain developments within our beloved church.

Here is the link to this week's study to be discussed in our various Sabbath Schools on March 2nd.

http://www.ssnet.org/lessons/13a/less10.html

The topic is "Stewardship and the Environment."