God’s Man, Darwin - Clifford Goldstein

[bevin]

Quote:

God’s Man, Darwin

C L I F F O R D G O L D S T E I N

A D V E N T I S T R E V I E W , M A Y 2 4 , 2 0 0 7 (465) 17

Quote:

Let’s get hypothetical and pretend that the Genesis Creation account was never meant to be taken literally. Although God was communicating with us about the work of creation, suppose the texts themselves were to be understood metaphorically, symbolically, nothing more.

First Clifford starts with a really biased statement, when he could have said “Let’s consider the possibility that”…

Quote:

Given that premise, what, then, was the Creator seeking to reveal about our origins?

Then he asks an excellent question

Quote:

Two points, even in a broad and liberal reading of Genesis 1, come through.

Which he gives his own loaded answers to – these are NOT the fundamental points of the Genesis 1 account…

Quote:

First, look at these verses: “And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. . . . And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and

let the dry land appear: and it was so. . . . And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. . . . And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. . . . So God created man in his own image” (Gen. 1:3, 9, 11, 26, 27, KJV). Everything was planned, precise, calculated; nothing random, arbitrary, chancy. It would take a Dadaist interpretation to derive randomness out of Genesis 1.

First he sees some anti-randomness issue – where as the text itself clearly talks about a chaotic beginning, followed by animals breeding. This is not describing a precision world being created, instead it is describing the creation of a biological world capable of amazing random variation…

Quote:

Second, look at these: “And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind. . . . And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and

every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind” (verses 21, 24, 25).

The texts reveal unambiguously that each creature was made after its own kind; that is,

each one was made separately and distinctly from the others.

Then he exaggerates the concept of “kind” – there is no dispute that when two members of a species breed, there are bounds on how far their offspring can vary from the parent. However Clifford sees some kind of absolute-boundary-on-variation that will hold across many generations. The text does not say this. Instead the text describes the standard evolutionary breeding model.

Quote:

Even from a nonliteralist interpretation of Genesis, two points are obvious: nothing was random in the act of creation, and there was no common ancestry for the species.

So he has looked into the ink-blot, and pulled out what he wants to get, even though it was not there….

Quote:

Now, along comes Darwinian evolution, which in its various incarnations teaches two things: randomness and common ancestry for all species. How, then, does one interpret Genesis through a theory that, at its most basic level, contradicts Genesis at its most basic level?

At its most basic level, Genesis teaches (a) that God made the entire universe including Earth, and ( that God is interested in Earth as one of the special places in that universe.

Evolution does not contradict these basic teachings.

Quote:

If evolution were true, it would mean that for thousands of years (from the Israelite period up through and beyond the Protestant Reformation) the Lord’s church was kept in darkness regarding human origins, until God, in His infinite wisdom, raised up His divinely appointed one, Charles Darwin, an atheist, to finally reveal the truth about the proper interpretation of Genesis.

Think of all the other things God did not see fit to reveal in the Bible - metallurgy, medicine, chemistry, physics. To claim that God appointed Darwin is Clifford being ludicrous…

Quote:

And though we shouldn’t judge someone in the nineteenth century by our standards today, God’s man Darwin also held racist views that would make David Duke look like an ACLU lawyer. Even worse, thanks to Darwin and his theory of human descent, racism had now been given a “scientific” rationale.

Let’s not go there – argumentum ad hominem has a nasty tendency to back-fire, and the background of Judaism and Christianity is not squeaky clean.

Quote:

Finally, many of Darwin’s teachings are rejected by evolutionists today. Even Richard Dawkins (the most vociferous of the evolution apologists) wrote: “Much of what Darwin said is, in detail, wrong.”

Clifford, learn to read “in detail” does not mean the same as “the big picture”. Darwin got the big picture right because, unlike Clifford, he actually considered the evidence and spent a LOT of time thinking it through…

Quote:

So, if evolution were true, then the Lord used an atheist racist with detailed errors in his teaching as the divinely appointed one to finally set the church straight on the book of Genesis and our origins.

No – God expected that Christian’s would use their own brains and learn about where their sacred books come from and what message they convey.

Quote:

I don’t know, but if Charles Darwin were right, it would seem that the One who is “the Word” (John 1:1), the One who created language, could have done a much better job of communicating with us than He did. Why inspire a creation account that teaches nonrandomness and a noncommon ancestry of all species when God used randomness and a common ancestry as His means of creation?

Quote:

Am I being a closed-minded, right-wing dogmatic intellectual bigot not to see something radically wrong here? Though I disagree with those who don’t read Genesis literally, their position is not absurd. What is absurd is to read an evolutionary schema into a biblical account that, even with a broad and free interpretation, denies it at the most fundamental level.

Clifford is being a closed-minded dogmatic pseudo-intellectual. Real intellectuals actually think, rather than making such shallow and self-serving imitations.

Quote:

Clifford Goldstein is editor of the Adult Sabbath School Bible Study Guide. He also hosts a television program on the Hope Channel called CLIFF!

[David Koot]

I have not read the article. I did, however, read what you excerpted from the article. I would have to say that many of the statements appear to be sloppy and unsubstantiated. Apart from that, randomness certainly appears in the natural world, particularly at the quantum level. NOt sure where Mr. Goldstein is coming from with his comments about randomness and order.

Dave

[John317]

Quote:

God?s Man, Darwin

C L I F F O R D G O L D S T E I N

A D V E N T I S T R E V I E W , M A Y 2 4 , 2 0 0 7 (465) 17

...

Athough I'm not an evolutionist and am certainly not defending that theory, yet the truth is that Charles Darwin was not an atheist, at least if what he wrote in the last chapter of the Origins of Species (1859) is a reliable representation of his personal beliefs. There he wrote that he credits "the Creator" as being responsible for the first life-forms: "There is grandeur in this view of life [that is, with its view of life-forms evolving in a war of nature], with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one..." (Chapter XV)

Also: "To my mind it [the explanation of life-forms] accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual." (Chapter XV)

The Descent of Man (1871) contains the following references to God, in which Darwin seems to argue against the notion of God as being either necessary or reliable, arguing that the idea of God (and apparently consciousness itself?) results from the very evolutionary processes he has been describing:

"With the more civilized races, the conviction of the existence of an all-seeing Deity has had a potent influence on the advance of morality...Nevertheless the first foundation or origin of the moral sense lies in the social instincts, including sympathy; and these instincts no doubt were primarily gained, as in the case of the lower animals, through natural selection.

"The belief in God has often been advanced as not only the greatest, but the most complete of all the distinctions between man and he lower animals. It is however impossible, as we have seen, to maintain that this belief is innate or instinctive in man. On the other hand a belief in all-pervading spiritual agencies seems to be universal; and apparently follows from a considerable advance in man's reason, and from a still greater advance in his faculties of imagination, curiosity and wonder. I am aware that the assumed instinctive belief in God has been used by many persons as an argument for His existence. But this is a rash argument, as we should thus be compelled to believe in the existence of many cruel and malignant spirits, only a little more powerful than man; for the belief in them is far more general than in a beneficent Deity. The idea of a universal and beneficient Creator does not seem to arise in the mind of man, until he has been elevated by long-continued culture." (Chapter XXI)

[John317]

I have not read the article. I did, however, read what you excerpted from the article. I would have to say that many of the statements appear to be sloppy and unsubstantiated. Apart from that, randomness certainly appears in the natural world, particularly at the quantum level. NOt sure where Mr. Goldstein is coming from with his comments about randomness and order.

Dave

I agree with Goldstein's general view that the Biblical creation narratives-- not to mention the Bible's view of sin and the Fall, etc.--don't appear to harmonize well with evolutionary theory. I have a real problem with the idea that the period of time between the days was thousands of years or even longer. This would mean that the trees and vegetation which were created during the third period had to wait thousands of years before being exposed to the sun's rays or before the separation between night and day, and even many more thousands of years before the creation of insects and birds.

[jasd]

>>I have a real problem with the idea that the period of time between the days was thousands of years or even longer.<<

That position would coincide with the majority view in Xtiandom. That said, how might one invest the creation epic with immediately sequential and/or chronological 24-hour days? It is difficult to

prove the negative, that is – the event that formed earth into its present sphere - is lacking. There exists then, only the default position, that is, a natural order obtains and the earth formed over a geological period [by tidal forces].

>>This would mean that the trees and vegetation which were created during the third period had to wait thousands of years before being exposed to the sun's rays or before the separation between night and day,<< [ed.jasd]

That assumes that plants and veggies cannot thrive without sunshine.

Tesla declared that he could light the gases of the ionosphere (much as a fluorescent lamp is lit) by projecting electricity from earth. That would provide light; even, gro-light.

Could Gd do less?

Gd stated that night and day consisted of a separation between light and darkness – not revolutions, per se. (this matter is probably more involved)

>>…and even many more thousands of years before the creation of insects and birds.<<

That would assume a hypothesis that indicates equal lengths of time between the days of creation.

(I find it interesting that Gd did not declare the creation of the second day -- good? that is, until summation...)

[skyblue888]

"Without the life of God, nature would die." E.G.White, 1 B.C.1081.

[Dr. Shane]

Regardless if one agrees or disagrees, Clifford Goldstien provides excellent intellectual stimulation and God has used him greatly in our denomination. We are blessed to have him.

[bevin]

He certainly generates a lot of controversy

/Bevin

[David Koot]

Clifford Goldstein clearly has a lot of ideas. A colorful figure, and of undoubted sincerity. I would not call him an empiricist.

[Dr. Shane]

His show, Cliff, is one of my favorites.

[skyblue888]

"Without the life of God nature would die." E.G. White, 1 B.C.1081.

At creation, when the Lord said, "Let the earth bring forth grass and herb yielding seeds and trees bearing fruits," His life was imparted.

Commenting on the first chapter of Genesis, Mrs. White makes this beautiful comment:

"The Lord has given His life to the trees and vines of His creation. His word can increase or decrease the fruit of the land. If men would open their understanding to discern the relation between nature and nature's God, faithful acknowledgments of the Creator's power would be heard. Without the life of God, nature would die. His creative works are dependent on Him. He bestows life-giving properties on all that nature produces. We are to regard the trees laden with fruit as the gift of God, just as though He placed the fruit in our hands."

"It is the word of God, the impartation of His life, that gives life to the seed. And of that life, we, in eating the grain, become partakers. This God desires us to discern; He desires that even in receiving our daily bread we may recognize His Agency and may be brought into closer fellowship with Him." Education, p.108.

"It is His life that we receive in the sunshine, in the pure, sweet air, and in the food which builds up our bodies and sustains our strength. It is by His life what we exist, hour by hour, moment by moment. Except as perverted by sin, all His gifts tend to life, health, and joy." Education ,p.197,198.

Thus, "The physical organism of man is under the supersivion of God; but it is not like a clock, which is set in operation, and must go of itself. The heart beats, pulse succeeds pulse, breath follows breath, but the entire being is under the supervision of God. In God we live and move and have our being." E.G. White, 1 B.C.1081.

This is what we should be concerned about, not side issues.

"This," we may know, "the Lord desires us to discern." Ed.108.

The above explains the words of Jesus for our physical nature: "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you." John 6:53.

sky

[John317]

Clifford Goldstein clearly has a lot of ideas. A colorful figure, and of undoubted sincerity. I would not call him an empiricist.

I think his books on the Investigative Judgment, the Heavenly Sanctuary, and 1844 are some of the best produced on those subjects. He answers Desmond Ford's objections to those doctrines, and Ford never has been able to successfully refute Goldstein's arguments and conclusions. I particularly admire his book, 1844 Made Simple. Ford's way of dealing with books like Goldstein's is simply to say the author is not a trained scholar. But anyone should be able to recognize that as a specious argument. If someone's evidence and arguments are valid, it doesn't matter whether those arguments are formulated by a trained scholar or not. Most of the Bible writers, including our Lord, also were not trained scholars, nor, even more tellingly, were Ellen White, Joseph Bates, James White, etc. Unfortunately, if his recent so-called book "reviews" are any indication, Ford is apparently more interested in winning debates and arguments than in searching for and finding out the truth.

[skyblue888]

Many years ago, I have read 1844 Made Simple and as far as I can remember, it is a good book. However, if I am not mistaken, Goldstein rejects the idea that the 1888 message was rejected by the leadership at Minneapolis and thereafer!

[D. Allan]

Big implications live in those quotes, sky.

God has incarnated himself in what is... everything has quote "His life." "It is by his life we exist."

So what is the difference between Jesus being the incarnation of God and any other being? I can't see the difference according to these quotes (and I don't mean that I disagree with them... they seem reasonable to me; but are Christians ready to accept her statements?) They don't have to imply a 7day creation; in fact they support the idea of an ongoing, continual creation. He's not done creating yet, evidently.

[D. Allan]

Quote:

Ford's way of dealing with books like Goldstein's is simply to say the author is not a trained scholar. But anyone should be able to recognize that as a specious argument. If someone's evidence and arguments are valid, it doesn't matter whether those arguments are formulated by a trained scholar or not.

That is just what needs to be realized that his evidence and arguments are not all they should be... There is something vital lacking.

[olger]

"Unfortunately, if his recent so-called book "reviews" are any indication, Ford is apparently more interested in winning debates and arguments than in searching for and finding out the truth."

Quite!

[Woody]

Let us not point fingers. There may be even more fingers pointing right back at ya. Has this become a them and us theme on CA?

[olger]

You could ask the chap who commonly says "the legalists" when referring to brethren who love Jesus as much or more than he does.

I don't find labels very useful,

og

[skyblue888]

Big implications live in those quotes, sky.

God has incarnated himself in what is... everything has quote "His life." "It is by his life we exist."

So what is the difference between Jesus being the incarnation of God and any other being? I can't see the difference according to these quotes (and I don't mean that I disagree with them... they seem reasonable to me; but are Christians ready to accept her statements?) They don't have to imply a 7day creation; in fact they support the idea of an ongoing, continual creation. He's not done creating yet, evidently.

The Christ of God is larger than the man Jesus of Nazareth. In his humanity Jesus lived by the same life that you and I live by. He received the life of Christ for His physical nature the same way we do, through the sunshine, the pure, sweet air, and the food which builds up our bodies and sustains our strength. And as a man, He also lived by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. And so must we. "Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God." Matt.4:4.

On his human side, Jesus was no different than us. His divinity was kept back the whole time. He was our example in all things. He partook of the divinity of the Father by faith, by hearkening unto the voice of His word.

In my previous post, Mrs. White was speaking only of physical life. "All creatures live by the will and power of God. They are recipients of the life of the Son of God." 1 S.M.301. In others words, all created beings live by the life of Christ, through the sunshine, the pure, sweet air, and the food which builds up the body and sustains the strength. This is physical life, obviously. And just as there is life for our physical nature through these gifts, which come to us through the words that were spoken at the time of creation, there is life for our spiritual nature from every command and from every promise that God has spoken for our spiritual life.

"His power, His very life, dwells in His word. Reveive the word in faith and it will give you power to obey." Mount of Blessing, p.150.

"The word of God is the seed. Every seed has in itself a germinating principle. In it the life of the plant is enfolded. So there is life in God's word. Christ says, [color:#990000]'The words that I speak unto you, they are Spirit and they are life.' Joh 6:63. In every command and in every promise of the word of God is the power, the very life of God, by which the command may be fulfilled and the promise realized. He who by faith receives the word, is receiving the very life and character of God." Christ's Object Lessons, p.38.

Notice these words: "The creative energy that called the worlds into existence is in the word of God. That word imparts power; it begets life. Every command is a promise; accepted by the will, received into the soul, it brings with it the life of the Infinite One. It transforms the nature and re-creates the soul in the image of God. The life thus received is in like manner sustained, by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God." Education, p.126.

"It is the privilege of every Christian to possess Christ's nature, a nature far above that which Adam forfeited by transgression." The Upward Look, p.18.

As we appropriate by faith the merits of Christ, "Christ places His own merits upon us and thus elevates us in the scales of moral value with God." E.G.White, Our Father Cares, p.121.

This is where the difference lies. The above is not true of all created beings, including the angels who have never sinned!

[David Koot]

I have read a bit of what Goldstein has written, but not to any great extent. However, as far as him being or not being a scholar . . . I would agree that such is not necessary. BUT, the position statement or work product needs to be credible. In order for a position statement to justify the time and effort to seriously review it, then I would suggest the following, for an OT study (Daniel, in this case, I believe it is):

Any position statement should be fully footnoted with references either to original research or credible sources. If Mr. Goldstein is purporting to do original research, with respect to the book of Daniel, then credible sources could include the following:

BHS (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia)

Septuaginta

Koehler-Baumgartner, Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the OT

Veteris Testamenti Concordantiae (Exhaustive Analytical Hebrew Concordance)

Hatch & Redpath, Exhaustive Analytical Concordance to the Septuagint

NIDOTTE

The Dead Sea Scrolls

Commentaries are not credible sources for that level of research. They do have their place for homiletic purposes IMO. Nor are lexicons such as Gesenius, Brown Driver Briggs, Strong's and other such.

At any rate, in order to justify giving a position statement the time of day, at least from this student's perspective, a level of credibility something like the foregoing would need to be present. Generally speaking, a student who publishes should be prepared to have every word which s/he writes scrutinized and potentially ripped apart. All, however, in a good cause.

Dave

[Woody]

You could ask the chap who commonly says "the legalists" when referring to brethren who love Jesus as much or more than he does.

I don't find labels very useful,

og

[John317]

Many years ago, I have read 1844 Made Simple and as far as I can remember, it is a good book. However, if I am not mistaken, Goldstein rejects the idea that the 1888 message was rejected by the leadership at Minneapolis and thereafer!

I didn't realize this about him. He must be accepting Froom's viewpoint as given in Movement of Destiny. It would be great if we could "interview" Goldstein on CA about those things.

[John317]

Big implications live in those quotes, sky.

God has incarnated himself in what is... everything has quote "His life." "It is by his life we exist."

So what is the difference between Jesus being the incarnation of God and any other being?

Are you familiar with the issue having to do with John Harvey Kellogg's book, The Living Temple? It was called "the alpha" crises. It was seen that pantheism destroys all Bible doctrines at their core. If God is everywhere and in everything, and if in fact God is virtually everything, then there is no need of a heavenly sanctuary, no need of a Second Coming, no fall, no need of the crucifixion for sinners, etc. Ellen White spoke of the time when the Omega crisis will strike the SDA church just before Christ comes back. It will no doubt have the same affect on church's doctrines as the "alpha" would have in the 1890s if those false teachings had been widely accepted.

The essential difference between Jesus' being the incarnation of God and any other being also being the incarnation of God is that the Bible clearly states that Jesus IS God and existed in the form of God before He was born as a baby on earth. The Bible does not say this about any other being who has ever lived.

Quote:

I can't see the difference according to these quotes (and I don't mean that I disagree with them... they seem reasonable to me; but are Christians ready to accept her statements?) They don't have to imply a 7day creation; in fact they support the idea of an ongoing, continual creation. He's not done creating yet, evidently.

If Ellen White really is a prophet of God, we need to accept all of her statements, and not just a select few.

[Gail]

Quote:

It would be great if we could "interview" Goldstein on CA about those things.

Hear that, Stan? I also think that would be a great idea!

[Woody]

Quote:

If Ellen White really is a prophet of God, we need to accept all of her statements, and not just a select few.

John317 ... This is completely false. Never in all of Biblical history has there been such a standard in Prophetism. Prophets have always been sinful erroring human beings. There is NO requirements for infallibility nor complete accuracy nor complete inspireability in everything a prophet has ever said or done.

Perhaps you can explain the infalliblity of a donkey. We do not need to accept all the statements of Ellen White. NOR can we. She grew in her faith and undersanding like all humans.

So .... NO way can we "accept ALL of her statements".

Shall I bring out the list of her statements that you have said are not correct previously? Of course your excuse is that she didn't "know" that her words would be made public. However even in the words that were intended for publication ... we see growth.