Are the Ica Stones evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted?

The Ica Stones, as they are often called, are a collection of engraved stones from the Ica region of Peru. To be fair, many stones are produced in other parts of Peru as artwork, but the Ica Stones are the most famous because of their depictions of dinosaurs, heart and brain transplants, maps, and telescopes.

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

In an evolutionary worldview, it is extremely unlikely that dinosaurs and humans coexisted, so it is generally a forgone conclusion that any stone that depicts humans riding dinosaurs is modern. There is no room to consider the authenticity of the Ica Stones (specifically those depicting extinct animals). This article from the Skeptic’s Dictionary, for example, which has been quoted all over the internet, is the typical response of skeptics to the stones. Alas, the author of the article did very little research, and most of the information in the article regarding the stones is wrong.

Dr. Stephen Meyers wrote a reasonable article on the stones, and while he did not see any of the stones, he went out of his way to research their authenticity by contacting experts on the stones. He did not come up with much information on the stones themselves, but the other evidence he uncovered gave him reason to doubt the stones’ authenticity.

Christopher Johnson wrote another article on the stones and actually went to see a collection of the engraved stones held in Pensacola, FL. While he points out the reasons that the stones could be real, he is not ready to vouch for their authenticity until further research has been done.

A little over a year ago, I was able to visit the Museo de Piedras Grabadas (Engraved Stone Museum) in Ica, Peru. The year before that, I was able to visit at least one person that supplied the museum with stones. (We visited two stone suppliers—I suspect that the other stone supplier we visited also sold stones to the museum.)

I learned several things that make me seriously doubt the authenticity of virtually all of the stones in the museum.

The first is the “patina” mentioned in the articles I referenced above. If you’ve ever broken a stone that has been sitting out for a few years, you probably noticed that the weathered surface of the stone was a different color than the freshly exposed surface. It has been claimed that the grooves in the stones were similarly weathered/not weathered in a way that proved/disproved that they had been exposed for a long time. What I found, however, was that the “patina” covering the rock and turning it black was…shoe polish. Really. I found this out the hard way when I threw a carved stone that I had purchased into my suitcase and the black shoe polish rubbed off on a pair of jeans. I assumed that the stones at the museum did not have shoe polish on them, but when I went to the museum, the stones looked exactly like the one I had purchased. I asked the museum curator about it, and he said that the black material was indeed shoe polish. His explanation was that the people that had found the stones had covered them with shoe polish so that the carvings could be seen easier, but based on the fact that none of the polish ended up in the grooves, I am certain that the polish was applied to the stones before they were carved.

The second blow to the stones’ authenticity that I came across was the person who sold me a stone. The person claimed to have sold some to the museum, and was honest enough to sell the stones cheaply as artwork rather than charging three or four times more and claiming that they were from tombs. Based on the unmistakable similarity of the stone I purchased with those in the museum, I tend to believe the story about the sale to the museum.

The third problem I encountered was the other artifacts in the museum. The curator had gone to the place where the stones had been found/produced, and had come back with “dinosaur eggs” and “dinosaur bones” to back up the drawings of the dinosaurs on the stones. From my geological investigations, however, I know that the “dinosaur eggs” are really what we call concretions—in this case, they were egg-shaped lumps of sediment held together with gypsum or carbonates. The “dinosaur bones” are actually the bones of Miocene whales, which were buried in volcanic ash and marine sediments.

So, in conclusion, if we’re looking for evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted, the Engraved Stone Museum is not the place to go. That said, archeologists have unearthed some artifacts in Peru that give one pause. I’ve seen very dinosaur-like creatures depicted on pottery that is held at the Museum of the Nation and the Larco Museum. This vase from the Larco Museum, for example, has a creature on it bearing a remarkable resemblance to a sauropod dinosaur.

I apologize for the picture quality—this item was on the bottom shelf of the museum archives in a poorly-lit room behind dirty glass.

The problem with using such a vase as evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted, however, is that if we claim that the depiction on this vase is a realistic representation of something, we have to at least entertain the possibility that the monkey-headed monster on the next vase was also real.

I would be very intrigued if genuine stones were found that depicted humans and dinosaurs together, and based on the biblical narrative, I suspect that dinosaurs were present in the Garden of Eden. I also suspect that the countless dragon myths told by so many cultures around the world hearken back to ancient memories of these massive reptilians. As the saying goes, however, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” and the engraved stones of Peru are not in the “extraordinary evidence” category.

The strange case of Adventism and sexuality

The Seventh-day Adventist Church has done well at using Scripture to sift traditional doctrine and practice, and reject that which is not biblical. A good example is the Sabbath, there being no sound biblical argument for keeping the pagan day of the Sun in derogation of the biblical Sabbath. Another example would be the state of the dead; the notion that a disembodied consciousness continues on after death is a pagan Greek idea that is contrary to the Scriptures. But Adventists have not done as well as most other “high Scripture” Christian churches in one area. We are weak on the one topic that Christianity has historically seen as emblematic of, almost definitional to, the distinction between Christians and pagans.

We Have No Fundamental Belief on Sexual Behavior

As Dr. Elizabeth Iskander pointed out in an article here last October, the SDA Church has no fundamental belief on sexual behavior. Elizabeth proposed that the following language be added to FB No. 22, on Christian Behavior:

We are not to engage in biblically unlawful sexual acts, including sexual acts between persons of the same sex, or between unmarried persons of opposite sex. Lev. 11:1-47; 3 John 2; Lev. 18:6-18, 22; Ex. 22:19; Prov. 7; Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Cor. 5:1-2, 6:9-11, 7:2-3; 1 Thes. 4:3-4; Heb. 13:4.)

It is not clear why our fundamental beliefs contain no statement setting out this basic, near universal Christian belief about sexual activity.

It could be argued that such a statement is not necessary, because it is common to Christianity. But there are many things in our fundamental beliefs that are shared by almost all Christians, including that the Scriptures are the written word of God (FB 1), the there is a Trinity (FB 2), that Jesus is God, was incarnated, died for our sins, and was resurrected (FB 4), etc. Since we chose to reiterate many of the basics of the Christian faith, why did we omit a statement on sexual behavior?

We Have Ignored All Biblical Guidance on Sex Roles

I will not extensively rehash what has often been discussed on this site, but the Bible establishes sex roles in the home and in the church. The husband is the head of the home. (Eph. 5:22-33; Col. 3:18-19; 1 Peter 3:1). The church offices of episkopēs (“bishop” or “overseer”) and presbuteros (“elder”) are described as male offices, to be filled by sober men who are the husband of one wife, and capable fathers. (1 Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9). Effective leadership of the family is a prerequisite to leadership in the church: “He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?” (1 Tim. 3:4) There are specific admonitions that women should not be in church leadership roles. (1 Cor. 14:33-35; 1 Tim. 2:11-14).

But when we Adventists read these passages, they seem alien to us. They have never been emphasized in the Quarterly, the Review, or any other official SDA publication. They seem almost the guilty secret of individual Adventist Bible readers, who think, “Wow, my pastor never said anything about this.” Needless to say, there is no fundamental belief on male headship. The clear biblical model of patriarchy in the home and in the church is not any part of our Adventist religious subculture.

I do have an idea how this came to be. Adventist pioneers often had to deal with those who—quoting the patriarchal passages—argued that because she was a woman Ellen White should sit down and shut up. Having a group of texts constantly used against you will not engender any fond feelings toward those texts. Adventists apparently decided there must be something wrong with the texts themselves, rather than in how they were being deployed against Ellen White. In fact, there is clear biblical precedent for female prophets (Judges 14:4; 2 Kings 22:14; Luke 2:36; Acts 21:8-9), and for women to prophesy in a church setting (1 Cor. 11:5). But the biblical fact that women may be prophets and may prophesy in church does not vitiate the normal gospel order of headship. (1 Cor. 11:3)

The result of our ignoring the biblical guidance on sex roles is that the SDA Church is now riven over the issue of women in church leadership. Most SDA members are in third world countries with more traditional cultures; they do not want female ordination. But the first world, having drifted along with post-Sexual Revolution feminism, is committed to implementing female leadership in the church, just as first world cultural, business, military and governmental elites are committed to implementing female leadership in all aspects of secular life. Even otherwise very conservative Adventists in North America, Europe, and Australia see no problem with women in leadership roles in the church. Last year, we watched as the NAD's attempt to remove the barrier to women becoming conference presidents led to a rebuff from the GC, which led, in turn, to a rebellion by the Columbia Union and the Pacific Union, both of which voted to ordain women notwithstanding that the world church in General Conference session has twice voted against it.

We Are, as a practical matter, Pro-Abortion

God has commanded us to be fruitful and multiply (Gen. 1:28; 9:1), and Scripture portrays children as a blessing from God (Gen. 33:5; Deut. 7:14; 28:4, 11; Psalm 127:3-5; 113:9; 128:1-6; Prov. 17:6; John 16:21; 1 Tim. 2:15; 5:14). A recurring scriptural motif is the barren woman who, in answer to her prayers and through God's power, is made fertile and bears a child. This was true of Sara (Gen. 18:9-15; 21:1-6), Rachel (Gen. 30:1-22), Samson's mother (Judges 13), Hannah (1 Sam. 1:1-20), and Elizabeth (Luke 1:5-25). In Scripture, children are greatly sought after, a cause for rejoicing, and fondly cherished.

Interestingly, the prophets write of God having formed them in the womb, and called them to be his messengers while still in utero. “For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb.” Psalm 139:12. “Yet you brought me out of the womb . . . from my mother’s womb you have been my God.” Psalm 22:9-10. Of Jeremiah, God says, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” Jer. 1:5. Isaiah testifies: “Before I was born the LORD called me; from my mother’s womb he has spoken my name. . . . And now the LORD says—he who formed me in the womb to be his servant to bring Jacob back to him and gather Israel to himself.” Isa. 49:1, 5. Paul states, “But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles . . “ Gal. 1:15. Samson's mother began preparing him for his future calling while he was yet in the womb, by eating a special diet during her pregnancy. (Judges 13:7, 13-14) These passages clearly imply that personhood begins before birth; a person is a person, capable of being designated for a consecrated purpose, while yet in the womb.

One who accidentally causes a premature birth or a miscarriage is subject to a fine (Ex. 21:22-25), but Scripture does not seem to have contemplated a situation in which someone would intentionally kill a baby in the womb. Yet there can be little doubt that abortion is contrary to a biblical and Christian world view. Scripture condemns the ritual killing of children as a “detestable practice.” (Lev. 18:21; 2 Chron. 28:3, 33:6; Ezek. 16:20-21; Jer. 7:31; 19:3-6; 32:35). In most pagan cultures, including ancient Greece and Rome, it was perfectly acceptable to abandon unwanted babies to die of exposure. But just as a Christian Rome eventually outlawed gladiatorial combat, she eventually, in 374 AD, also outlawed the pagan practice of exposing unwanted babies (the ancient practice most comparable to the modern late-term abortion). The Christian consensus about babies is that they are not to be killed, in the womb or out of it.

The Seventh-day Adventist Church has an ambivalent official statement about abortion, which speaks of an unborn child as “a magnificent gift of God,” while also seeking to preserve “the personal liberty of women” to toss that magnificent gift in the trash. But there is nothing ambivalent about the Church's involvement in the abortion industry. We are hip deep in the abortion business. Elective abortions are performed at many Adventist hospitals, but the real history has been made by individual Adventist doctors. Dr. Edward C. Allred, a graduate of La Sierra University and Loma Linda University, founded “Family Planning Associates” and personally aborted well over a quarter of a million babies. Dr. Allred made the abortion business very lucrative by spending no more than five minutes with each expecting mother. “We eliminated needless patient-physician contact,” he told one reporter. Allred owned 23 abortion clinics, which generated $70 million in annual gross revenues and $5 million in annual profits. When Dr. Allred retired from the business, he sold it to another Seventh-day Adventist, Dr. Irving M. “Bud” Feldkamp III. (Dr. Feldkamp is a dentist, not an OB/GYN, but he recognized a profitable business when he saw one.)

Although Allred's fortune was built on aborted babies—and he continues to own horse-racing venues which he has stuffed with slot machines—his money was plenty good enough for his alma mater, La Sierra University, which named the “Edward C. Allred Center for Financial Literacy and Entrepreneurship” after him. La Sierra's board is chaired by Pacific Union President Ricardo Graham; other union officials and three conference presidents also sit on the board. If these men approve of taking blood money from a mass abortionist and naming a “center” after him, it cannot reasonably be argued that the SDA Church is ambivalent about abortion. We are pro-abortion. We seem to consider abortion as wholesome as motherhood and apple pie.

The church’s pro-abortion stance has consequences. It is often argued that high standards are an impediment to church growth, but all of the research and empirical evidence suggest that people are attracted to churches that have high standards and make demands on their members. Our failure to take a Christian position turns people off, including many Adventists. Teresa Fry Beem was a Seventh-day Adventist anti-abortion activist, one of four children of a prominent family in Keene, Texas, where I grew up and was educated. Teresa became so frustrated with the church's stance on abortion that she converted to Roman Catholicism. She's written a book entitled, “It's Okay Not to be an Adventist,” and has founded a “former Adventist discussion group” on Facebook. It's hard to know how to respond to the Teresa Beems; abortion is a needless and indefensible stain on the Adventist Church.

We Are Slowly liberalizing the Church Manual on Divorce and Remarriage

At the 2000 General Conference session in Toronto, a comprehensive re-writing of the church manual chapter on divorce and remarriage was approved. Actually, the re-writing had been tabled after stiff opposition from the conservative third-world delegates, but was revived by a parliamentary maneuver and approved by majority vote on the last morning of the session, when only about 150 of more than 2,000 official delegates (fewer than ten percent of the official delegates) were present on the floor. Most of the conservative delegates from the developing world had gone to check on flight reservations (there was a rumor of an Air Canada strike) and were not present for the vote.

The new chapter on divorce and remarriage begins with a general discussion of marriage that includes an unsubtle attempt to undermine the Biblical teaching of male headship in the home. (Eph. 5:22-33; Col. 3:18-19; 1 Peter 3:1) The new chapter states: “Partnership in Marriage—Unity in marriage is achieved by mutual respect and love. No one is superior.” Of course, role distinctions do not imply ontological superiority or inferiority, but role distinctions between men and women are part of the created order. The new chapter also states, under “Restoration and healing, No. 2”: “Oneness and Equality to be Restored in Christ—The gospel emphasizes the love and submission of husband and wife to one another (1 Cor. 7:3-4; Eph. 5:21).” The cited scriptural passages are not germane. Corinthians 7:3-4 commands spouses not to withhold sex from each other. Ephesians 5:21, telling believers to “submit to one another,” probably does not even apply to relations between the sexes, but rather to Christian believers in general. Most translations attach this phrase to verse 20, as in the KJV: “Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ; submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.” Some politically correct translations, like the most recent NIV, detach verse 21 from the preceding verse and place it below an added, editorial subheading, “Instructions for Christian Households” or some similar verbiage. The next verse, Eph. 5:22 states, “Wives, submit to your husbands, as to the Lord.” In verse 25, husbands are commanded to love, but not submit to, their wives.

The biblical standard for divorce is very clear: “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” Mat. 19:8. Jesus' disciples thought His teaching on divorce was outrageous, and we are just as committed to easy divorce as were the people of Jesus’ day. But the standard is the standard. “Men are not at liberty to make a standard of law for themselves, to avoid God’s law and please their own inclination. They must come to God’s great moral standard of righteousness.” Ellen White, The Adventist Home, p. 342.

Ellen White’s counsel notwithstanding, the SDA Church at Toronto made a new standard. The revised Church Manual chapter states:

Grounds for Divorce—Scripture recognizes adultery and/or fornication (Matt. 5:32) as well as abandonment by an unbelieving partner (1 Cor. 7:10-15) as grounds for divorce.

Did Paul really intend to add another ground for divorce to what Jesus had clearly stated? (How ironic that, based upon this lone passage, we’ve expanded the biblical grounds for divorce, yet remain in full-throated denial of Paul’s oft reiterated specification of male headship in the home and the church.) Even assuming that Paul created a new ground for divorce, does this situation arise often enough to warrant mention in the Church Manual? It seems to apply only when two non-Christians marry, one is later converted, and the unconverted spouse then insists upon getting a divorce without biblical grounds.

The re-written Church Manual chapter also postpones discipline in cases of non-biblical divorce until either of the spouses marries a third party, at which time the remarrying spouse should be removed from church membership. The most probable practical effect of this change is that one or both of the former spouses will have moved to different church before remarriage, the prior marriage and divorce will have been forgotten, and discipline will go by the boards.

As explained below, church discipline in cases of divorce has become rare, so the changes to the church manual were largely academic. But the absence of practical consequences argues for leaving the standards as they were: Since discipline is rare anyway, why add another ground for divorce, and why defer the possibility of discipline from the time of the unlawful divorce until the time of the unlawful re-marriage? It is difficult to view these changes as other than incremental (creeping) liberalism, a slow abandonment of that much-hated, impossibly high moral standard on divorce and remarriage.

What to do?

In all of these areas—biblical grounds for divorce, sex roles, sexual behavior, and abortion—a Southern Baptist will be far more likely than an Adventist to be familiar with the relevant biblical principles. That is not something to be proud of. Our Adventist religious subculture has, strangely, failed to acknowledge plain biblical standards and principles in the area of human sexuality.

Until about four decades ago, Adventism in North America could ride the coattails of a basically Christian sexual constitution. In the 19th and early 20th Century, we were more patriarchal than Latin America is now or ever was. Father knew best. Divorces could only be obtained by rigorously proving a ground for divorce (or by agreement, but even an agreed divorce usually necessitated an extended vacation in Nevada). Abortion was illegal, expensive and dangerous. Pornography was illegal; “stag films” existed underground, not as a multi-billion dollar above-the-counter business. Sodomy was illegal, and laws against overt homosexual activity were often enforced. Social disapproval of unwed motherhood and illegitimate children, and the lack of effective birth control, discouraged out-of-wedlock heterosexual activity; when an unmarried girl was found to be pregnant, inquiries were made and a shotgun wedding was arranged.

But the Sexual Revolution changed all that. Society rejected the concept of sex-role differentiation in the workplace, and governments began to enforce gender neutrality across a wide range of endeavor. Between 1967 and 1973, all 50 states adopted no fault divorce, meaning that either party could be granted a divorce without having to prove grounds. In the late 1960s, a few jurisdictions began to liberalize their abortion laws, and in 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court mysteriously found a theretofore unimagined constitutional right to abortion. Some 55 million babies have been aborted since Roe v. Wade. Most forms of pornography—those that did not involve minors or extreme acts—effectively became legal, as the Supreme Court subjected state obscenity laws to an expanded notion of freedom of expression. The gay rights movement erupted after the Stonewall Riots of 1969, and by the late 1970s most cities had stopped enforcing sodomy laws (although they remained enforceable until the Supreme Court's 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas deemed them unconstitutional). Strong social disapproval of unwed motherhood began to dissipate (does anyone remember “Murphy Brown”?); unsurprisingly, the percentage of out-of-wedlock births has quintupled since the sexual revolution, and now stand at 41% of all births. In sum, the Sexual Revolution overthrew a basically Christian sexual constitution and replaced it with one that is pagan or worse.

The Sexual Revolution’s toppling of the Christian sexual constitution has many implications for organized Christianity, including the Seventh-day Adventist Church, one of which concerns church discipline following divorce. Before the introduction of “no fault” divorce, the church could usually rely on the state to determine who was at fault in a divorce proceeding. But today, almost all divorces are no-fault divorces; the state courts no longer find fault, but merely divide the common property and issue any necessary orders regarding child custody, support, and visitation. The church would need to introduce ecclesiastical divorce courts in order to replace the factual findings of fault that the civil courts no longer make. Thus far, the church has shown no interest in instituting church courts. The result is that, in North America over the past 35 years, there has been less and still less formal church discipline over divorce, until it is now almost never seen. Sadly, we now have even pastors who are remarried in a way that is biblically unlawful.

The Sexual Revolution brought about radical changes to the sexual constitution of the developed world, discarding a traditional Christian view of sexuality and replacing it with a pagan view of sexuality that is based upon the idea that anything consenting adults want to do with each other is normative and acceptable. Because of this cultural earthquake, Christians in the developed world can no longer coast along with the dominant culture. And yet that is exactly what Seventh-day Adventists have done in the areas of sex roles, abortion, and divorce and remarriage. We must not continue to drift along with an increasingly pagan larger culture. As Seventh-day Adventists, we need to open our Bibles and, in humble submission, learn what Scripture teaches about sexuality. It seems late in the day to transform our sexual subculture, but the first step in solving any problem is to admit you have one. We have one.

He can still shut the lions' mouth

Have you ever wondered what Daniel was doing in the lion’s den? I have. As a kid I used to picture the lions being sweet like those in heaven. I wondered if Daniel was able to pet them. Maybe he could cuddle up by them and hear them purring as he went to sleep. I don’t know about all that, but I think I do know one thing he was doing. Years ago, our church had purchased thousands of Final Events DVDs to hand out to the community. My family had volunteered to help. We all spent an hour or so putting DVDs in clear plastic bags, and telling the children how nice it was that we could share Jesus with the people in Alvarado, wondering how many people would be in heaven because they chose to witness for Jesus.

I had three children in my van: our twelve-year-old son, Joshua, our daughter Missy, who was 6, and another little girl, Hosanna. We were having such a happy day passing out DVDs. The children were hanging a bag with a DVD in it on each doorknob, and I was driving right beside them. When all of a sudden a very large black German shepherd came at them barking and snarling and snapping at Joshua’s legs. I was so proud of him for staying between the dog and the little girls. Three frightened but uninjured children made it into the van. A lady yelled from down the street, “I’m so glad they are ok! That dog is mean. They need to do something about him. Last week he bit someone!”  Josh’s torn jeans seemed like a small thing.

But now what? It was important for each house to get a DVD. We were praying and expecting people to be in heaven because of these DVDs! I had read tons of missionary and colporteur stories to my children, stories about God performing miracles. What kind of witness was it to my kids for us to up and leave these houses undone because of a mean dog? Would the missionaries and colporteurs  give up? Did I want to let Jesus down?

I turned off the van, took the bags from the children and got out of the van. I told the Lord that I was trusting in Him. I reminded Him that He had taken care of countless colporteurs and I knew He could take care of me. My prayer as I walked to the other side of my van was, “I am doing Your work, You said You would be my Refuge.” The dog began to come towards me barking and snarling. Any courage I might have felt melted away, leaving only fear, but I kept on walking forward. “Lord, I believe, help Thou my unbelief!” The dog continued to snarl staying about three feet away. I didn’t have the courage to go to their door, but their mailbox was right there, so I hung a bag on their mailbox, and began to go to the other houses. But that big, black, angry German Shepherd didn’t stay at home. It followed me to every house keeping a distance of about three feet, snarling and threatening me the whole time.

I was praying and claiming promises, yet the dog would not leave me alone. Then, I was impressed to sing. For almost a decade, we had been teaching the children the opening hymn for church. I began to sing one of those hymns of praise we had memorized. And the moment I began to sing, that dog stopped snarling and his mouth was shut. The courage I had acted on, but had not felt, I then began to feel.

Now, when I think of Daniel in the lion’s den, I’m not so sure he was cuddling up to any lions. But I am pretty sure he was singing songs of praise.

Young earth, no gap interpretation biblically valid

In "Outline of proposed theories for Genesis 1:1-2", we looked at the five major interpretations of Genesis 1:1,2. Seventh-day Adventists have historically understood these verses as the Young Earth-No Gap position. The Seventh-Day Adventist Encyclopedia sums this position up by stating: “on the first day of the Creation week . . . He [God] brought into existence the matter that composed the earth and that He proceeded immediately with the work of the six days.”[1] Keeping this in mind, we will see if the Young-earth, No Gap interpretation is a valid one.

I. "In the beginning"

The first question to answer is in the beginning of what? Is the word “beginning” in reference to a specific time or event that is knowable in Scripture? Is “beginning” an intangible time eons ago? Or does it refer to the “absolute beginning” of the world, or universe?

Lexical Considerations

“In the beginning" (Hebrew- re’sheet[2]) has four basic meanings. They are:

1. Chief[3] (chief place,[4] chief leader[5]), Leader[6] (President,[7] Prince,[8] Ruler[9]),
2. Principle[10] (of anything[11]),  Best[12] (Best of its kind[13]),
3. Head[14] (of man or beast[15]), Top[16] (of mountain,[17] peak[18] highest place,[19] summit[20]),
4. First[21] (at first,[22] first place,[23]  first part[24]), Beginning[25] (primary motion from rest[26]), commence[27]

The definition that fits the context the best is number four. This meaning defines the initiation of a process or first part of something; whereas the first three describe qualities or positions of something, someone, etc. Genesis 1:1 could have been written “at the first God created,” “at the start God created,” or “at the commencement God created . . .," etc. Re’sheet does not have the meaning of “in time(s) past,” “in ancient time,” “in past ages,” etc. If Moses had wanted to use a Hebrew word that refers to a time before creation week, he had the choice of using: 1 ) Ri’shown--former, formerly, before, aforetime, old time, foremost; 2 ) Gohlahm--ancient time, anciently, of old; 3 ) Shilshowm--idiom for 'in times past', times past, past, beforetime. Because Moses did not use any of these words, and because re’sheet doesn’t carry the lexical meaning of “ages past,” “in times past,” etc., we can know Moses was trying to convey a specific time that is knowable to us.  A point of interest in this discussion is the Good News Translation of Gen. 1:1-,“In the beginning, when God created the universe.”  In our next article[28] we will see that “heaven” and “earth” do not refer to the creation of the universe,[29] “time,” etc.[30] In summary, “beginning” (re’sheet) has a lexical meaning of a point in time or first part of something that is knowable. It does not denote a point in time followed by a gap or space (primary motion from rest implies the motion continues without stopping). It also doesn’t designate between an “absolute beginning”[31] (whatever this means) and “beginning.”

Comparative ConsiderationsRe’sheet is used 51 times in the Old Testament. A comparative word study is in harmony with the definitions given above. In Scripture, re’sheet defines the starting point of a process, time period or first part of something. For example:

1. Beginning or First part of a kingdom, reign, year, nations[32],
2. Beginning or First part of yearly produce, livestock, offerings. . (dough, corn, sheep, offerings, wine[33]),
3. Beginning or First part of moral or physical attributes (wisdom, sin, strife,[34] strength, might[35]),
4. Beginning or First part of a thing, man, etc.[36] (in contrast to “the end”- Is. 46:10).

The Old Testament reveals that re’sheet is not used as a nebulous or unknowable word. Rather, it delineates a specific point of time that can be measured or understood from the context or other passages. The context of Genesis one is the “filling“ and “forming” of the earth and heavens. Therefore, “beginning” is directly related to the subsequent actions of God in Genesis one and two.

Grammatical Considerations Grammatically, the opening word bere’sheeth (a form of re‘sheet) is in the “absolute state”[37]and the opening phrase is an independent clause.[38] (For detailed discussion of the grammatical, syntactical and stylistic considerations of Genesis 1:1,2, please see Gerhard Hasel's “Recent Translations of Genesis 1:1,” The Bible Translator 22, 1971[39]). Verse one is not dependent on verse two, but rather two (and three) are dependent on verse one. Some modern translations have misdiagnosed this, and begin with the phrase “when in the beginning” (NJV, NEB, NAB, CEB, NRSV). These versions imply that the “beginning” is something that happened long before verse two. Dr. Hasel has shown that bere’sheeth should be translated “In the beginning” and that it “has the support of word studies, grammar, Masoretic pointing and accentuation.”[40] If Moses wanted to say the “heavens and earth” began ages ago (Active-Gap Theory- occurring after verse 1), he would have used the construct state and the first phrase would have been a “Dependent clause” (“when in the beginning . . .”). As we will note in the Syntactical Considerations, verses two and three also begin with the linking word “and” (“AND the earth was without form . . . AND God said, ‘Let there . . .’”). This unifies the first three verses together in time- which rules out the Passive-Gap Theory (which proponents say happened after verse 2).

Contextual Considerations

“Heavens and the earth were finished”-

Genesis 2:1 says, “thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.”

When the Hebrew word “finished” (kalah) is used in the O.T., it references a process (building, construction, numbering, prophecy, etc.[41]) that continues uninterrupted from its commencement. In other words, the word “finished” stands in opposition to “beginning” like book ends of a process that once started, progresses until finished with no gaps or lulls. In reality, this is the summary statement of the creation account, not Genesis 1:1.

“Generations of the heavens and the earth”

Genesis 2:4 says- “these are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created....” The Hebrew word for “generation” (toh-l’dohth) has the meaning of: a genealogy,[42] family history or lineage,[43] family connected by birth,[44] successive generations, etc.[45] The Bible uses this word with family lineages, in which the line goes back, unbroken until the beginning. Examples of this are Jesus' lineage in Luke 3, and the generations of Adam in Genesis 5.[46] Dr. Richard Davidson comments, “The chronogenealogies of Gen 5 and 11 have indicators that they are be taken as complete genealogies without gap[s] . . . tight interlocking features make it virtually impossible to argue that there are significant generational gaps.”[47] In a similar way, the chronogenealogy of Genesis 1 contains interlocking features (“evening and morning . . . first day“) that vitiate gaps or spaces. In the Old Testament, the first generation of a genealogy is followed directly and contiguously with the second. To be consistent, the first generation (of “heaven and earth”) would be followed consecutively and contiguously with the events and days of creation. Therefore, once the heaven and earth are created (Gen. 1:1), their “family line” would continue with the next “generation” following directly.

Syntactical Considerations

The syntax of Genesis 1:2 contains “three noun clauses, which all describe the state of existing contemporaneously with the action expressed in Genesis 1:1. In other words, verse two describes the state of the earth during the time when the activity of verse one was ended and that of verse three began.” (emphasis mine)[48] In Hebrew, verse two begins with the word “and” (Hb.- waw), and it is in the copulative form.[49] According to Dr. Hasel, when “the noun [is] in an emphatic position followed by the verb [it] leads to a meaning that may be rendered[50]- 'And (as far as) the earth (is concerned it) was . . .'"[51] Hebrew scholar D. Kidner concurs that verse two is connected to one, “By all normal usage the [second] verse is an expansion of the statement just made, and its own two halves are concurrent.”[52] What this means is that there is no gap (of time) between verse one and two; verse two is simply a description of the earth created in verse one. Verse three also begins with the word “and” (waw- copulative), so that “just as verse 2 is connected to verse 1, so also there is a link between verses 2 and 3.”[53] Dr. Hasel concludes his remarks on the syntax by stating- “The author of the first verse of the Bible expresses the idea that ‘in the beginning’ . . . God created ‘heaven and earth‘. . .  this created world was in a condition described in verse 2. Next God transformed this condition into the one presently existing.” (emphasis mine)[54] This is confirmed by another exegete- “Genesis 1:3 begins with another conjunction, so we know it is part of the continuing action. . .[55]

Stylistic Considerations

Stylistically, Genesis 1 is characterized by the consistent use of short sentences: “And God saw that . . . was good” (1;4,10,12,18,25,31);’ and there was evening and there was morning, . . . Day one” (1:5,8,13,19,23,31). The implication of this stylistic uniqueness militates against a syntactical construction of verses 1-3 that makes these verses into a long and complicated sentence structure.”[56] Verse one contains a single short phrase and “verse 2 consists of three noun clauses.”[57] Therefore, the brevity of the phrases in verses one and two are consistent with the rest of the chapter, belonging to a “series of characteristically short sentences.”[58] While verses one and two may not begin with the distinctive “and God saw,” or “and God said,” etc., they still have the same short cadence.

One argument against Genesis 1:1,2 being included in the creation week, is the formula- “And God said . . . Day one,” “And God said . . . Day two,” etc. The contention is that all the days begin with “And God said,” and conclude with “day one,” “day two,” etc., therefore verses 1,2 are not “within that framework”. There are several reasons why Genesis 1:1,2 don’t fall within this pattern, and why we shouldn’t insist on this “formula” as applying:

1. Verse 1 gives us a reference point (“beginning“)- so that we know WHEN God speaks (v. 3). If verse one began- “And God said. . .”- we would not know at what point in time He began His work.
2. Verse 3 begins with “and”- which links verse 3 with verse 2. Verse 1 doesn’t start with “and,” since it is not continuing an activity- it is initiating one.
3. The “planting of a garden” (2:8), the creation of a “mist” to water the ground (2:6), etc.- do not fall within the “formula” of chapter one- since they are within the complementary chapter 2.
4. Ps. 33:6 says the “heavens” were made by the “word of the Lord.” As for the earth- they were made “by the word of God” (Heb. 11:3). These verses show us that God spoke the “heavens and the earth” into existence. Therefore, the alleged “formula”-  “God said. . .” was still followed, even if we don’t know this from Genesis 1. (more on this in the next article)
5. God “covered the earth with the deep” (Ps. 104:6) and “strengthened the fountains of the deep” (Pr. 8:28). The “deep” (including the “waters”) was created in a way not expressed in Genesis 1.
6. The following were not specified within the “pattern” of “and God said. . . Day one”- yet were created during the first week: 1) The “springs of the sea” (Job 38:16), 2) commanding “the morning” (Job 38:12), 3) Causing “the dayspring” (Job 38:12), 4) “forming the mountains” (Amos 4:13), 5) “creating the wind” (Amos 4:13[59]), 6) “builds spheres in the heaven. . . arch of the earth” (Amos 9:6, A.R.V.[60]), 7) calling for “the waters of the sea” (Amos 9:6), 8) forming “the light, and darkness” (Is. 45:7), etc. These and other passages show that we should not limit our understanding of creation to the alleged “pattern” of Genesis one- “and God said. . . Day one, etc.”.

In light of the lexical, grammatical, syntactical, contextual, comparative and stylistic information, the evidence points to the creation of “heaven and earth” at the “beginning” of the first day of the creation week. The above findings confute the idea that Genesis 1:1 refers to an “absolute beginning,” “ancient beginning,” “primordial beginning,” etc. The focus of Genesis one and two is the creation week, therefore “beginning” (re’sheet) is directly linked (in space and time) and related to the information that follows.

II. “Created”

Lexical Considerations The word “created” (bara) in Genesis 1:1 has two primary meanings:  1 ) To create,[61] bring into existence,[62] bring forth,[63] cause to exist (that which had no existence),[64] produce into being,[65]  and 2 ) to form,[66] to build or fashion,[67] to shape,[68] to engrave, cut out,[69] etc. The meaning that is in harmony with the context is number one, since the “earth was without form and void” (verse 2). The “shaping,” “building” and “forming” would take place on days two through six. It was the creative act of “causing to exist” that which had not previously existed, that Genesis 1:1 is referring to--creatio ex nihilo.

“Created” (bara) and “made” (asah) The fourth commandment has been used to support God creating the “heavens and the earth” on the first day of creation. It reads, “for in six days the Lord made the heaven and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them” (Ex. 20:11). The passage seems to affirm that God “made” the heaven and the earth DURING the “six days” of creation. Critics of this understanding assert that since the word “made” (asah) is different that the word “created” (bara) in Genesis 1:1[70]they cannot be conflated. However, this fails to take into consideration the nuanced differences and similarities between these two words. In Gen. 2:3, “God created (bara) AND made (asah)” the heavens and the earth. Therefore, bara (“created”) and asah (“made”) are used in harmony with each other.

Like bara, asah has two general meanings: 1 ) To make out of pre-existent matter,[71] to form- fashion,[72] modeled,[73] fabricated,[74] etc.; and 2 ) A General word, to perform an act--doing,[75] acting,[76] working,[77] do mightily,[78] bring about,[79] etc. Some lexicographers state it this way, “asah” is a “very general word- like ‘do’ and ‘make’ in English.”[80]  In the fourth commandment, God is referring to ALL His created works involving the earth and heavens. Therefore, He uses a word that applies to His activity in general. God “molded” and “formed” man, and animals (Gen. 2:7,19) out of pre-existing material, but He “created” other things (Light, trees, etc.) by His word. Therefore, “asah” does not stand in tension to “Bara.“ Rather, was the best general word God could have used to include those things created from nothing, AND those from pre-existing material (man and animals).

Conclusion

From our brief survey, we have seen that the evidence points towards the creation of the “heaven and the earth” on the first day of creation. At this point we can summarize the following: 1 ) “Beginning” (re’sheet) is a knowable point of time at the first day of creation, 2 ) God created the world out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo) in the recent past on the first day of creation, 3 ) this understanding is in harmony with the fourth commandment which includes “heaven, earth, sea and all that is in them,” 4 ) the popular geologic dating results are not in harmony with the Biblical record, so they must be revised to correlate with Scripture. In the next article, we will look at the three elements that God created in the “beginning” of the first day (verse 2)- “heaven,” “earth” and “water” (including “the deep”). In the final article we look at why any of this is relevant.

[1]    “Creation” in the Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia, ed. Don F. Neufield, 35

[2]  The specific Hebrew form of resheet used in Genesis 1:1 is B’resheet

[3]   Jastrow, Hebrew-English Dictionary, Samuel Pike, Hebrew Lexicon, William Osborn, English-Hebrew Lexicon, W.H. Barker, Hebrew Lexicon, Brown-Driver-Briggs, Hebrew-English Lexicon

[4]   Samuel Pike, Hebrew Lexicon

[5]   Josiah Willard Gibbs, Hebrew-English Lexicon

[6]   Jastrow, Hebrew-English Dictionary, William Osborn, English-Hebrew Lexicon, William Duncan, English-Hebrew Lex.

[7]   Jastrow, Hebrew-English Dictionary

[8]   Mitchell & Davies Hebrew/Chaldean Lexicon

[9]   William Roy, Hebrew-English Dictionary

[10]   Samuel Pike, Hebrew Lexicon, William Roy, Hebrew-English Dictionary, Jastrow, Hebrew-English Dictionary, Brown-Driver-Briggs, Hebrew-English Lexicon, Thomas R. Brown, Lexicon, W.H. Barker, Hebrew Lexicon

[11]   William Osborn, English-Hebrew Lexicon

[12]   Thomas R. Brown, Lexicon

[13]   Josiah Willard Gibbs, Hebrew-English Lexicon

[14]   Jastrow, Hebrew-English Dictionary, William Roy, Hebrew-English Dictionary, Samuel Pike, Hebrew Lexicon, William Osborn, English-Hebrew Lexicon, Josiah Willard Gibbs

[15]   W.H. Barker, Hebrew Lexicon, Mitchell & Davies Hebrew/Chaldean Lexicon

[16]   Samuel Pike, Hebrew Lexicon, W.H. Barker, Hebrew Lexicon

[17]   William Roy, Hebrew-English Dictionary, William Osborn, English-Hebrew Lexicon

[18]   William Roy, Hebrew-English Dictionary

[19]   Josiah Willard Gibbs, Hebrew-English Lexicon

[20]   Mitchell & Davies Hebrew/Chaldean Lexicon

[21]   Samuel Pike, Hebrew Lexicon, William Osborn, English-Hebrew Lexicon, W.H. Barker, Hebrew Lexicon, Thomas R. Brown,  Lexicon, Brown-Driver-Briggs, Hebrew-English Lexicon

[22]   Samuel Pike, Hebrew Lexicon, W.H. Barker, Hebrew Lexicon

[23]   John Parkhurst, Hebrew Lexicon

[24]   John Parkhurst, Hebrew Lexicon

[25]   Jastrow, Hebrew-English Dictionary, Samuel Pike, Hebrew Lexicon, Josiah Willard Gibbs, Hebrew-English Lexicon, Brown-Driver-Briggs, Hebrew-English Lexicon, Mitchell & Davies Hebrew/Chaldean Lexicon, John Parkhurst, Hebrew Lexicon

[26]   Thomas R. Brown, Lexicon

[27]   William Osborn, English-Hebrew Lexicon

[28] “in the beginning” does not refer to the “beginning of the universe,” the “beginning of time,” etc.  A thorough refutation of this idea can be found in Ferdinand Regalado’s article- “The Creation account in Genesis 1: Our world only or the Universe?” (Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 13/2, Autumn 2002) http://www.atsjats.org/publication_file.php?pub_id=54&journal=1&type=pdf

[29] See also - http://www.truthnet.org/Genesis/Genesis-Chapter1/Genesis-Chapter-1-Creation-of-Universe.htm

[30] The Institute for Creation Research has written- “No other cosmogony, whether in ancient paganism or modern naturalism, even mentions the absolute origin of the universe. . . the concept of the special creation of the universe of space and time itself is found nowhere in all religion or philosophy, ancient or modern, except here in Genesis 1:1. . . this  verse records the creation of space (“the heaven”), of time (“in the beginning”), and of matter (“the earth”) . . .”

http://www.icr.org/bible/Genesis/1/1-3/

[31]http://dialogue.adventist.org/articles/06_3_davidson_e.htm

[32]  Gen. 10:10; Jer. 26:1; 27:1; 28:1; 49:34; Deu. 11:12; Nu. 24:20

[33]  Nu. 15:20, 21; Neh. 10:37; Deu. 18:4; 1 Sam. 2:29; 2 Ch. 31:5

[34]  Pr. 1:7; Mic. 1:13; Pr. 17:14

[35]  Gen. 49:3; Deut. 21:17; Ps. 111:10; 78:51; 105:36, Jer. 49:35

[36]  Job 8:7; Job 42:12; Ecc. 7:8; Prov. 8:22

[37]https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1976/January/the-meaning-of-genesis-1:1

[38]https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1976/January/the-meaning-of-genesis-1:1

[39]https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1976/January/the-meaning-of-genesis-1:1

[40]   Hasel, Ministry, Op. Cit.

Dr. Hasel notes: “Moses could not have used any other construction to denote the first word as in the absolute state, but he  could have opted for a different construction to indicate the construct state. . . [the] Vulgate, Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus, Targum Onkelos- All place the first word of the Bible in the absolute state- - and an independent main clause. . .  [furthermore] The Masoretes (who supplied the Hebrew text with vowels and accents, Placed the first word in Genesis with a disjunctive accent tiphha- construing it as an absolute.

[41]  Ex. 39:32- Tent of the Congregation                                                         2 Chr. 4:11- Huram finished the work that he was to

Ex. 40:33- Moses finished the work                                         2 Chron. 7:11- Solomon finished the house of the Lord

1 Ki. 6:9- So he built the house and finished it                                   Dan. 12:7- all these things shall be finished

1 Ki. 7:22- so was the work of the pillars finished

[42]   William Wallace Duncan, Hebrew and English Lexicon

[43]   Edward Mitchell and Benjamin Davies, Complete Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, Josiah Gibbs, Hebrew-English Lexicon, Jastrow, Hebrew-Aramaic-English Dictionary

[44]   Edward Mitchell and Benjamin Davies, Complete Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon

[45]   Brown-Driver-Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon

[46]  Other genealogies would also include: Gen. 6:9- the generations of Noah, Gen. 10:1- the generations of the sons of Noah, Gen. 11:10- the generations of Shem, Gen. 11:27- the generations of Terah, Gen. 25:19- the generations of Isaac, Ex. 6:19- Levi, according to their generations, Nu. 3:1- the generations of Aaron, Ru. 4:18- the generations of Pharez, etc.

[47]http://www.andrews.edu/~davidson/Publications/Creation/Biblical%20Account.pdf

[48]   Hasel, Ministry, Op. Cit.

[49] Hasel, “Recent Translations of Genesis 1:1,” The Bible Translator 22, 1971

[50]   Hasel, Ministry, Bible Translator, Op. Cit.

[51]  N.H. Ridderbos, “Genesis 1:1-2,” (Oudtestamentische Studien 12, 1958), 231

[52]   D. Kidner, Genesis, p. 44

[53]   Hasel, Ministry, Op. Cit.

[54]   Hasel, Bible Translator, Op. Cit.

[55] Rich Deem, http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis1.html

   “And God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light‘. . . every thought is begun with a conjunction, so we know that all        of this is part of the continuing action.”

[56]   Hasel, Ministry, Op.Cit.

[57]   Hasel, Ministry, Op. Cit.

[58]   Hasel, Bible Translator, Op. Cit.

[59] Quoted in E.G. White, Ministry of Healing, p. 414

[60] Quoted in E.G. White, Ministry of Healing, p. 414

[61]  John Parkhurst, Hebrew-English Lexicon; William Roy, Ibid, Mitchell & Davies, Ibid; Brown-Driver-Briggs, Ibid

[62]  Thomas Brown, Hebrew Lexicon

[63]  William Roy, Hebrew-English Dictionary

[64]  William Roy, Hebrew-English Dictionary

[65]  John Parkhurst, Hebrew-English Lexicon

[66]   John Parkhurst, Ibid; William Osborn, Ibid; Josiah Gibbs, Ibid; Brown-Driver-Briggs, Ibid; Samuel Pike, Hebrew Lexicon

[67]  William Roy, Ibid; Mitchell & Davies, Ibid; William Duncan, Ibid; Brown-Driver-Briggs, Ibid

[68]  Brown-Driver-Briggs, Hebrew-English Lexicon; Jastrow, Hebrew-Aramaic-English Dictionary

[69]  Josiah Gibbs, Hebrew-English Lexicon; William Duncan, Hebrew-English Lexicon; William Duncan, Ibid;  Jastrow, Ibid

[70]http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis_one_age_earth.html

[71]   John Parkhurst, Hebrew-English Lexicon

[72]   John Parkhurst, Hebrew-English Lexicon; W.H. Barker, Hebrew Lexicon

[73]   William Roy, Hebrew-English Critical Dictionary; W.H. Barker, Hebrew Lexicon

[74]   William Osborn, Hebrew-English Lexicon

[75]   Jastrow, Hebrew-Aramaic-English Dictionary

[76]   W.H. Barker, Hebrew Lexicon; John Parkhurst, Hebrew-English Lexicon

[77]   William Roy, Hebrew-English Critical Dictionary; John Parkhurst, Hebrew-English Lexicon; Josiah Gibbs, Lexicon

[78]   Brown- Driver- Briggs, Hebrew-English Lexicon

[79]   Brown- Driver- Briggs, Hebrew-English Lexicon

[80]   John Parkhurst, Hebrew-English Lexicon

Sacrifice of praise

Have you ever wondered whether we should praise God for everything that happens to us? I believe that we have sound biblical counsel to praise God in every situation and for every situation. The Bible talks of a sacrifice of thanksgiving and a sacrifice of praise. (Ps. 116, Jer. 33:11, Heb. 13:15) It isn’t all that hard to praise and thank God for the things that make me happy. That doesn’t seem like much of a sacrifice to me. But to praise Him when I am hurting and bad things have happened or are happening, I have to put aside my feelings and die to self. I have to look with eyes of faith at the goodness of God, and by faith take hold of His promises. To praise Him in my pain is a choice to trust that He does not lie and will make all things work together for good for me because I do love Him and know that He has called me. Paul tells us to give thanks for all things, and in all things. (Eph. 5:18, 1 Thess. 5:18) He says that the things that happen to us are the will of God. In Phil. 4:4-7, Paul also tells us to rejoice always, not to worry, but instead take our requests/problems to God with thanksgiving. When we choose to do this by faith, we can also claim His peace that passes understanding.

James tells us to count it all joy when we have trials. This again has to be by faith, because trials don’t feel good. James says that the trials produce patience, if we let them. (James 1:2-4)

Peter tells us to rejoice at fiery trials because we are partaking of Christ’s sufferings and when His glory is revealed we will have exceeding joy. (1 Peter 4:12, 13)

We can rejoice in our trials because we trust Him. (Ps. 33:18-22)

I really love the practical counsel in the book Ministry of Healing. It has a whole chapter that gives me reasons to praise God in my trials. It is called Help in Daily Living.

God uses trials: They show me my defects so that they can be corrected. They prepare me to do His work. And they purify me. I need all this! Often my plans fail so God’s plans can succeed. This is really good; His plans are always better than mine! I am never really called to sacrifice anything- even the good that God asks me to surrender He is using to give me something better. In heaven I will see that the prayers I thought God didn’t answer, as well as my deepest disappointments, in reality were my greatest blessings. I can’t find peace until I make a complete surrender. These really are all things to praise God for, but they have to be seen through eyes of faith. It’s not always easy to do or even easy to remember that we should.

I have a friend that recently went through a rough divorce. For months we prayed together and claimed God’s promises. Many times her children joined us as well. Not long after her divorce she called me and told me that she had been talking with a friend and heard herself telling her friend the same thing I had been telling her all this time. “Praise God for the blessings He has planned to give you through this trial.” For the first time, she confessed to me that when we began praying together she was annoyed every time I said it. And I said it a lot! and in many different ways: Jehoshaphat and the choir going out before the army, Paul & Silas singing praises and the prison doors being opened, my own testimonies of how God has answered my prayers when I have chosen to stop griping and start praising Him for His will being done in my life.

We talked about Job as well. Job praised God in all his trials but he still went through more. We looked at the blessings God gave him after the trials. God doesn’t always answer our prayers the way we think is best when we praise him. I shared with her an experience I had almost 20 years ago. I had one toddler and was pregnant with our 2nd child. We had chosen for me to stay home with our children. But going from two incomes to one is hard. One Friday, my husband and I knelt down and gave God our finances. We surrendered it to His will. Monday, my husband was laid off. No income was definitely not what we had planned! And yet, God used the trying situation to answer so many of my prayers- including our prayer about finances. Looking back, I could trace the hand of God, showing my friend how God really does do for us that which we would choose for ourselves could we see the end from the beginning, if we let Him.

In our recent phone call, my friend said that she laughed when she found herself giving the same ‘annoying’ counsel. The beautiful thing was she was also able to share her testimony of choosing to offer a sacrifice of thanksgiving in the midst of her turmoil. She was able to encourage her friend by sharing how God was already using the situation to bless her family, and answer her prayers. And the blessings were because of the fiery trial she had gone through, not in spite of them.

An entertained mind is the devil’s workshop

The line, “If you go into a movie theater, your guardian angel will wait outside” is now frequently viewed as another artifact of Adventism’s embarrassingly legalistic past. A rhetorical question I’ve heard used as a counter-argument to this statement is “Does that mean that if I watch a movie on TV, the angels will leave my house?” Here are some statements from Messages to Young People regarding the theaters of the day:

Among the most dangerous resorts for pleasure is the theater. Instead of being a school for morality and virtue, as is so often claimed, it is the very hotbed of immorality. Vicious habits and sinful propensities are strengthened and confirmed by these entertainments. Low songs, lewd gestures, expressions, and attitudes, deprave the imagination and debase the morals. Every youth who habitually attends such exhibitions will be corrupted in principle. There is no influence in our land more powerful to poison the imagination, to destroy religious impressions, and to blunt the relish for tranquil pleasures and sober realities of life, than theatrical amusements.

The love for these scenes increases with every indulgence, as the desire for intoxicating drink strengthens with its use. The only safe course is to shun the theater, the circus, and every other questionable place of amusement.

The true Christian will not desire to enter any place of amusement or engage in any diversion upon which he cannot ask the blessing of God. He will not be found at the theater, the billiard hall, or the bowling saloon. He will not unite with the gay waltzers, or indulge in any other bewitching pleasure that will banish Christ from the mind.

To those who plead for these diversions, we answer, We cannot indulge in them in the name of Jesus of Nazareth. The blessing of God would not be invoked upon the hour spent at the theater or in the dance. No Christian would wish to meet death in such a place. No one would wish to be found there when Christ shall come (398).

In response to the first statement, I’ve heard many Adventists repeat the mantra that “theaters are different today.” While this statement is obviously true on some levels (moving pictures and surround sound are new additions to the theater environment), look again at Ellen White’s description of the problem: “Vicious habits and sinful propensities are strengthened and confirmed by these entertainments. Low songs, lewd gestures, expressions, and attitudes, deprave the imagination and debase the morals.” This description of theatrical entertainment is still dead-on. Even when it appears that a movie portrays the triumph of good, what is really being portrayed is exactly the opposite. (See "The message from Hollywood.")

If we accept Ellen White’s first statement, then the second one follows. Why would we desire entertainment that serves to strengthen our vicious habits and sinful propensities?

In light of these statements from Ellen White, is the saying “If you go into a movie theater, your guardian angel will wait outside” outdated or too harsh?

It has become clear to me over the years from personal experience and from observing others that God often protects his wayward children. However, the temptations of Christ teach us that to trust in God’s protection while acting outside of His will is presumption. When Satan tempted Christ to jump from the temple, and quoted Psalm 91, saying “He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone,” Jesus replied by quoting Deuteronomy 6:16: “Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.” If we intentionally place ourselves on Satan’s territory, we cannot claim God’s promises of protection.

If we bring the insidious influence of the television into our homes, we should expect it to drive out the influence of the Holy Spirit and the holy angels. If we wish to remain in the shadow of the Almighty, on the other hand, we should do all in our power to become more receptive to the Holy Spirit, and make our homes places where the Holy Spirit is free to work.

Response to La Sierra's bylaw propaganda

Since my “Open Letter to Ted Wilson” regarding the proposed changes to La Sierra University's bylaws, the university has released four press releases that appear to respond to the issue. On March 5 LSU noted that the vote on the bylaw changes, which was to have been held on February 21, had been postponed until May 23, 2013, at 1 p.m. The meeting had been scheduled at the Pacific Union Conference headquarters in Westlake Village, but that violated the bylaws, which required that constituency meetings be held at the La Sierra campus.

According to the story, 72 delegates attending what became an “informational meeting,” examined the proposed changes, “asked probing questions, and shared suggestions about a number of items in the proposed Bylaws document. Members of the Articles and Bylaws Committee attended the February 21 meeting to hear the constituents’ comments. They will meet to consider the feedback, and adjust the proposed changes where advisable.” But if the bylaw changes have been modified at all, no new version has been posted online.

Next, on March 15, LSU posted a press release titled "Is La Sierra University Leaving the Adventist Church? No!"

This raises the question: How many other Seventh-day Adventist colleges have to answer questions about whether they are leaving the church? What is it about La Sierra that leads people wonder whether it is leaving the church? The article states:

Several groups and individuals are using postings on independent websites to allege proposed changes in La Sierra University’s bylaws are an attempt to weaken or break the school’s historic ties with the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

Then LSU tries to argue that this is not true. But according to LSU, these changes to the board structure have been demanded by Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC), and WASC has indeed stated that “an educational institution’s board and administration should preserve their independence from . . . external parties, such as related entities,” the term “related entities” including sponsoring denominations. The stated purpose of the bylaw changes is to satisfy WASC that the university is sufficiently autonomous from the Seventh-day Adventist Church. LSU can hardly argue both that the bylaw changes are necessary to satisfy secular accreditation, and that they do not weaken the church's control over the University. That's trying to have it both ways. If the bylaw changes address WASC's concerns, then obviously they are intended to weaken the university's ties to the church.

The March 15 posting has several numbered statements. The first states:

1. Throughout the university’s accreditation conversations and bylaws revision process, La Sierra University’s Articles and Bylaws Committee maintained the position that the university would remain distinctively Adventist. Governance concerns expressed by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC), our regional accrediting body, prompted the bylaws discussion. But WASC’s concerns were focused on the University’s governance practices, not on its mission. During their two years of careful work to resolve WASC issues, committee members also ensured the bylaws remained in alignment with the University’s mission and values, developed and voted by the faculty, staff, and trustees.

 The real question is why does WASC have governance concerns about La Sierra? La Sierra's Board of Trustees is structured exactly like every other union-affiliated Seventh-day Adventist college in North America. Why has no other secular accrediting body in North America expressed concerns about the board structure of an Adventist college?

WASC has taken the remarkable stance that, “Concerns can arise when the board chair is responsible to a related entity, such as a religious institution, . . .” But all SDA tertiary educational institutions have a union president or other church official as their ex officio board chair, who obviously is “responsible to a related . . .religious institution.” All union-affiliated colleges have the union president as their board chair. So WASC has just fired a shot across the bow of the entire tertiary educational apparatus of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. WASC is casting aspersion on all of our colleges’ governing boards. WASC is, in effect, demanding that the church cut loose its entire higher educational structure. If the LSU constituency caves in to this pressure from a secular accrediting authority, it jeopardizes the entire SDA tertiary educational establishment in North America.

The author of LSU's press release makes a distinction between governance and mission, but if the mission of La Sierra is to be governed by the SDA Church, then changes to its governance will impair its mission. This board structure, used throughout North America, has been developed in order to ensure that the SDA Church retains control of its schools. Without structures in place to ensure church control, the church has no way of making certain that its schools continue to support and promote the mission of the church. To change the board structure is to undermine the ability of the church to ensure that La Sierra is faithful to its mission.

2. The proposed bylaws require the Board of Trustees to ensure the mission and major policies of the university are well aligned with the goals and objectives of the Adventist Church. The board oversees the strategic plan and its progress. Adventist mission is central to the function of the board.

The proposed bylaw changes transfer almost all governing power away from the Board of Trustees and vest it in the president of the university, so the board will no longer have the power to ensure anything. For example, all power to hire and fire is removed from the board and given to the president; the board will not even retain oversight in this area. So how can the board ensure that faculty hires are aligned with the goals and objectives of the church? If the mission and major policies of the university are not aligned with the goals and objectives of the Adventist Church, the board will have no power to do anything except fire the president and hope for better luck next time.

3. The revised bylaws make no change in the number or offices of the church leaders who serve the board on an ex officio basis. The board will continue to have among its members the Pacific Union Conference president, secretary, treasurer, vice president, director of education, and the presidents of the Southern and Southeastern California conferences and the Arizona Conference.

But the quorum rule is changed so that there is no quorum unless lay members outnumber ex officio members. And the Pacific Union Conference president can no longer serve as the president of La Sierra's board of trustees as long as he continues to chair PUC's board of trustees. Moreover, the chair changes from an ex officio to an elected position, which obviously weakens the power of the board chair relative to all other board members and the university president. Again, remember that these changes are designed to satisfy WASC that La Sierra has sufficient independence from the Seventh-day Adventist Church. That is the stated purpose of the changes to the structure of the Board of Trustees, so it is disingenuous, to say the least, to argue that they do not loosen the SDA Church's control over the university.

4. La Sierra University’s comprehensive Spiritual Master Plan (entire document available at: http://www.lasierra.edu/index.php?id=8122) makes the following clear statements about the university’s commitment to the church:

• La Sierra University is committed to the Seventh-day Adventist faith and life.
• La Sierra University embraces the biblical Sabbath as a gift of sacred time.
• La Sierra looks to the future with eagerness, anticipating the fulfillment of the Advent hope.

La Sierra University remains deeply committed to the Adventist philosophy of education. Our mission of seeking truth, knowing God, and serving others is daily experienced by our students and those privileged to accompany them on their educational journey. The university’s Spiritual Master Plan guides our work in providing invigorating classroom conversations, meaningful worship experiences, and transformative service opportunities,” says Randal Wisbey, president.

La Sierra claims to embrace the biblical Sabbath “as a gift of sacred time,” but the Sabbath is sacred because God hallowed it at the creation; it is more than just a gift of time, it is a memorial to God's work of creation in a literal week. Adventism came into existence largely to call people back to worship on the day that God set aside at the creation. (Gen. 2:2-3; Ex. 20:11; Rev. 14:7) If mainstream science is correct in its theories about origins—life spontaneously self-assembled and self-vivified, and evolved from single-celled forms over the course of some six hundred million years, and humans evolved from an apelike ancestor some two million years ago—then the Adventist faith is utter nonsense. Yet La Sierra has been teaching this view of origins as truth for many years, and has resisted all efforts to reform this aspect of its curriculum. This casts grave doubt on the university's commitment to the Adventist faith.

La Sierra points us to a “Spiritual Master Plan,” but having a plan for the future is no substitute for upholding plain Bible truth right now. Moreover, the plan raises more questions than it answers. It discusses a science-faith seminar, but previous efforts in this area were probably more corrosive to Adventist faith than the biology classes.

According to the “Spiritual Master Plan,” subjects that will be featured at campus-wide assemblies include “earth care, women’s issues, service, mission, social justice, Christian responsibility,” a litany of liberal enthusiasms.

The problem with any “Spiritual Master Plan” that La Sierra might devise is that it will be implemented by the extremely liberal religion faculty. That faculty was formed by Fritz Guy, who recently co-wrote a book arguing that the writer of Genesis intended to convey that the raqia [Heb. = expanse, firmament, sky] is actually an inverted metal dome:

Then there's John Webster, who told the students in the seminar class that the literal (Historical-Grammatical) method, which is the approved method of Biblical interpretation is “not particularly helpful,” and it might be more helpful to view the opening chapters of Genesis not as how the world came into being, but how it was inaugurated to be God’s dwelling place. Then there's Tricia Famisaran, who urges us to repent of our sins of heterosexism and patriarchy, and suggests that since Lady Gaga has determined that homosexuals were “born that way,” the rest of us should act accordingly:

In sum, a “spiritual plan” is only as good as the people who implement it. A fine-sounding plan cannot take the place of a dedicated and committed Board of Trustees having real governing power, who will put in place a dedicated and committed president and faculty.

Much of LSU's official response to the bylaw change issue is aimed at trying to get the LSU constituency—which has an ethical obligation to inform itself, from any and all sources, regarding the nature, details, and effects of the bylaw changes it is being asked to vote for—to pay no attention to anyone other than the current LSU administration:

While the theories these critics present appear to be objective, they omit important information about the bylaws, the revision process, and recent actions by the university’s board, administration, and faculty. . . . Critical voices are often loud, and their accusatory tone attracts attention. Their self-assured manner suggests that they are speaking with authority. But be assured, there are other more credible voices to be heard.”

But the constituents can judge for themselves what is truth while considering several points of view. “In a multitude of counselors there is safety.” Prov. 11:14. It is always better to consider both sides of the story. “He that speaks first in his own cause seems just; until his neighbor comes and examines him.” Prov. 18:17. It should be clear that when Wisbey advocates these bylaw changes, he speaks in his own cause.

Moreover, LSU Constituent Members do not represent the current administration, nor do they exist to rubber-stamp the existing administration's agenda. The constituency represents the entire Adventist community in Southern California and the Pacific Union, and its commission is to ensure that the University remains faithful to its mission and founding purpose. For LSU to discourage its constituent members from hearing all points of view is like the president discouraging your congressman from listening to your point of view on pending legislation.

Next, on April 5, LSU treated us to a brief history of its accreditation.

The point of this press release seems to be to claim that WASC first raised board structure/governance concerns in 1996, long before Wisbey became president (and, in fact, early in Larry Geraty's tenure as president). We are told that the two main items WASC wanted addressed way back in 1996 were:

1. The number of trustees not employed by any entity of the SDA Church (deemed insufficient at the time), and

2. That the president of the Pacific Union Conference also served as chair of the Pacific Union College board. WASC recommended four steps to take in beginning to address this issue.

We are expected to infer from this information that WASC's intrusion cannot have been solicited by Randal Wisbey, because WASC had these same concerns 11 years before Wisbey became president of La Sierra.

Now, let me see if I have this straight: WASC raises concerns about La Sierra's board structure back in 1996, does nothing for fourteen (14) years, grants LSU accreditation for a full 8-year term in 2010, then says, “oh, by the way, fix your board structure like we said back in 1996.”

To whatever extent WASC raised a concern about board structure in 1996, it was obviously answered back then. The notion that WASC allowed a concern to fester, unaddressed, for 14 years is a non-starter. The concerns were addressed, and WASC was satisfied, back in 1996. Moreover, if the board structure were such a grave concern to WASC, would WASC have extended full accreditation to La Sierra in 2010—fourteen years after the concerns were first raised without them ever having been addressed? Bear in mind that LSU's accreditation is valid until 2018, a full 22 years after the concerns were first raised.

The idea that there is continuity of concern between 1996 and 2010 is surreal. Obviously, the governance issue somehow got put back on the front burner after 14 years of being a non-issue. Why? Because (one strongly suspects) Randal Wisbey wants bylaw changes that he knows he cannot push through without a threat from the accreditors.

But is WASC being consistent in making these demands? There are three separate Brigham Young Universities, the main one in Provo, Utah, another in Idaho, and a third in Hawaii. All three are separate institutions; the Idaho and Hawaii schools are not branch campuses of the BYU in Utah. These three schools share one (1) board of trustees headed up by one (1) man, Thomas S. Monson, the current president and prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All of the board members are high officers in the Mormon Church, and most if not all are paid by the Mormon Church. There are no elected lay members on the board; all board members are there by virtue of their offices in the Mormon Church. In other words, they are all ex officios.

The Brigham Young University in Hawaii is within WASC's territorial jurisdiction. Is WASC demanding that BYUH have a separate board? Is WASC demanding that Thomas Monson step down as board chair of BYUH because he also chairs the board for the Utah and Idaho schools? Is WASC demanding that the Mormon Church pack its unitary board with lay members who hold no high offices in the church? The answer to all these questions is, of course, no. Why? Because WASC understands that it exists to ensure basic academic standards, not to dictate to religious denominations how they shall govern their educational establishments. In fact, in 2008, WASC reaffirmed BYUH's accreditation for 10 years.

Finally, on April 12, LSU posted an article explaining the importance of accreditation.

But no one disputes the value of accreditation, and accreditation is not the issue here. La Sierra could retain its current board structure throughout the ceaseless ages of eternity without ever jeopardizing its secular accreditation. The problem is that Randal Wisbey wants to be his own boss, with no real possibility of any meaningful interference from the larger Seventh-day Adventist community. These bylaw changes are a huge step in that direction. WASC doesn't really care about these changes; in the case of BYUH, WASC has not challenged a single, unitary board and board chair governing three separate Mormon institutions, consisting only of church ex officios, with no elected lay members.

The constituency of LSU must not allow itself to be stampeded by an empty, solicited accreditation threat into approving bylaw changes that should never be approved, and that place at risk the entire tertiary educational structure of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.