HIGHER CRITICISM IN THE ADVENTIST CHURCH

[B/W Photodude]

HIGHER CRITICISM IN THE ADVENTIST CHURCH

The question of women’s ordination dominated the headlines at the recent 2015 General Conference, but the real concern was the advancing power of “higher criticism” within the church. Many faithful Adventists in favor of women’s ordination saw the issue in simple terms of fairness and equity without realizing the true source of contention—the question of biblical authority. In reality, the foundations of current theological disagreements in the church are changing because the hermeneutical principles of many Adventists are changing.

http://advindicate.com/articles/2015/8/28/higher-criticism-in-the-adventist-church

[ Biblical hermeneutics is the study of the principles of interpretation concerning the books of the Bible. It is part of the broader field of hermeneutics which involves the study of principles of interpretation for all forms of communication, nonverbal and verbal.]

[pierrepaul]

HIGHER CRITICISM IN THE ADVENTIST CHURCH

The question of women’s ordination dominated the headlines at the recent 2015 General Conference, but the real concern was the advancing power of “higher criticism” within the church. Many faithful Adventists in favor of women’s ordination saw the issue in simple terms of fairness and equity without realizing the true source of contention—the question of biblical authority. In reality, the foundations of current theological disagreements in the church are changing because the hermeneutical principles of many Adventists are changing.

Here is the old strawman, the assumption by those on one side that they are "more biblical" than those on the other side. One could just have easily written "The question of women’s ordination dominated the headlines at the recent 2015 General Conference, but the real concern was the advancing power of “headship” tradition within the church. Many faithful Adventists against women’s ordination saw the issue in simple terms of tradition without realizing the true source of contention—the question of biblical authority. In reality, the foundations of current theological disagreements in the church are changing because the hermeneutical principles of many Adventists are changing."

Edited September 9, 2015 by pierrepaul

[B/W Photodude]

Here is the old strawman, the assumption by those on one side that they are "more biblical" than those on the other side. One could just have easily written "The question of women’s ordination dominated the headlines at the recent 2015 General Conference, but the real concern was the advancing power of “headship” tradition within the church. 

Apparent, given the vote, higher criticism was on more people's minds!

[joeb]

HIGHER CRITICISM IN THE ADVENTIST CHURCH

The question of women’s ordination dominated the headlines at the recent 2015 General Conference, but the real concern was the advancing power of “higher criticism” within the church. Many faithful Adventists in favor of women’s ordination saw the issue in simple terms of fairness and equity without realizing the true source of contention—the question of biblical authority. In reality, the foundations of current theological disagreements in the church are changing because the hermeneutical principles of many Adventists are changing.

http://advindicate.com/articles/2015/8/28/higher-criticism-in-the-adventist-church

[ Biblical hermeneutics is the study of the principles of interpretation concerning the books of the Bible. It is part of the broader field of hermeneutics which involves the study of principles of interpretation for all forms of communication, nonverbal and verbal.]

I agree with you.  Jesus told us we need the faith of a child.  He wasn't just flapping His gums or talking just to be talking when He said it.  "Higher criticism" is the human being thinking his mind is the equal of God's.  It's the idea that the fallen human mind can successfully distinguish between truth and error without help from God.  The French had a name for it in the French Revolution.  They called it the Goddess of Reason.  And we know exactly what that produced.

The failure to take God at His word is destroying faith today, and the Bible actually asks if faith will be found on the earth during the last days. 

[Sojourner]

Clearly it was biblical that Ellen White should have stayed silent in the church and not sought to teach or to instruct males in Chrstian theology. I guess neither should Rachel Oakes Preston have shared theology on the Sabbath with the fledgling Adventist movement that convinced them of this truth either?

[Gregory Matthews]

The article that photodude posted is devoid of even a minimal understanding of so-called higher criticism.  The statement from that article is an example of its lack of understanding.

To engage in an informed discussion one should begin by discussing both "lower criticism" and "higher criticism to include their differences.

There is a valid criticism that has been raised against higher criticism.  That criticism is that a large group of higher critics have gone to an extreme and in doing so rejected any kind of a traditional understanding of the Bible being of supernatural nature.

But, that fact does not reveal the foundational principles of higher criticism.  There are many who accept those foundational principles and also believe that the Bible is of supernatural nature.

A Sabbath School Class I attend recently had a scholar from the General Conference attending as well as another scholar guest.   During the class, the GC Scholar listed the foundational principles by which we should approach the Bible.  I joined in to tell him that:  1) Those principles were those that the church advocated as to our approach to EGW.  NOTE  He did not disagree with me on that.  2)  I then told him, and the class, that the basic principles that he had advocated were those of higher criticism.   He took issue with that.  The other scholar agreed with me.

Certainly  the article that photodude posted may contain some accurate facts, although I consider them to often be below the  surface.  But, the author of that article clearly reveals his lack of basic understanding of higher criticism.

One can, and some do, approach the Bible using the basic principles of higher criticism and continue to believe that the Bible is of divine beginning.

 

The essence of higher criticism is the arrogant idea that mere mortals can speak with greater authority than the most authoritative book of all time.

Edited September 10, 2015 by Gregory Matthews

[B/W Photodude]

The article that photodude posted is devoid of even a minimal understanding of so-called higher criticism.  The statement from that article is an example of its lack of understanding.

Certainly  the article that photodude posted may contain some accurate facts, although I consider them to often be below the  surface.  But, the author of that article clearly reveals his lack of basic understanding of higher criticism.

 

While article was interesting, and while I see your concern regarding a possible lack of a basic understanding of higher criticism, it may not have been the author's lack of understanding. I tend to think that within the confines of an article discussing higher criticism and an issue current to to the membership of the SDA church, it would have been quite the task to adequately discuss the problems of higher criticism. When you consider that higher criticism is a process that has been going on since the first Bible was printed, thru the Reformation, the Enlightenment, down to the Post-Modern era, and has involved religious figures, philosophers, and Biblical scholars, you can see the daunting task we are asking this author to do.

If you just read thru the different types of higher criticism, pretty soon you realize that practically for every well-known name there is another viewpoint on how to interpret the Bible. Some you may be able to think they are genuinely interested in understanding the Bible, but many are transparently attempting to find someway to dismiss the Bible as having any validity for guiding mankind's social and ethical behaviors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_criticism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_criticism

And given the incredible capabilities of Wikipedia, all thru just the two pages linked to, there are many many links that go off in all kinds of direction in attempting to explain higher criticism.

What I think concerns many is that within the SDA church, there are people attempting change the way we interpret the Bible to give a different understanding to what people can plainly read. My understanding of the Bible has always been that you can take the Bible and nothing else and by reading it come to an answer of what is required of you for salvation. So, when many of those pushing WO are also pushing the church to accept the concepts of gay marriage and gay leadership in the church and evolution, you become a bit concerned. When they are so wrong on those issues, how can they be right on the WO interpretation?

[Kevin H]

Higher and lower criticism is not that difficult to understand. They were both designed to be tools used in Bible study. Not that one was any better than the other.

Around the 1700s it was noted that there were different writing styles in the Bible, including with in the same books. "Higher" criticism was looking at these styles to see how the Bible was written and lower criticism was the study of the finished product. We use both all the time with Mrs. White. We look at the sources she used and how her staff edited the work and study how she developed her ideas over the years. That is higher criticism. Lower criticism is the study of the finished product within itself. What was she saying in this passage.

With the rise of evolution there was a rise of skeptics and atheists. They began mocking Bible believers by saying "If God is perfect should not his word be perfect, so why all this editing in the Bible? Should not a perfect God have just had one smooth manuscript all perfectly written?" and thus they launched on to higher criticism and began using that to slice and dice the Bible so that there was nothing left and thus gave higher criticism it's bad name.

Those who wanted to defend the Bible went to the other extreme. They began arguing that the Bible was indeed perfectly written and was refusing to look at the evidence of editing and only studying the finished product.  God was perfect, God wrote the Bible and thus the Bible did not need to be edited so we don't need higher criticism but only study the finished product and thus latched onto lower criticism and took it to an extreme and formed the movement called "Fundamentalism." Going into the 1900s  they started printing out a series of pamphlets called "The Fundamentals" that were very popular. Then finally they had a big Bible Conference in Philadelphia PA.

Meanwhile there were voices who was not comfortable with the two extremes that the church was going to: The unbelieving modernists and the Fundamentalists. One minister preached a sermon wanting to maintain a balance. To accept the Bible as inspired but realizing that God worked with people. Their personalities, their knowledge and what they study and their sources for study. His sermon was unpopular by both sides. People were furious as to his views. His ministry suffered and eventually he was forced out of the ministry because a woman said that he had an affair with her. Later that was proved to be a lie but the lady said that she told the lie to get him out of the ministry so that he could stop making his attacks on the Bible and to nullify what he had been teaching.

The understanding of the "Shut door" had kept Adventism out of the origins of this conflict. But when we modified the understanding of the shut door and came more into contact with others the dust was starting to settle. Apparently the first to bring Fundamentalism into the Church was W. W. Prescott who read one of the early books on Fundamentalism, liked it and started teaching it. When Mrs. White learned about it she asked him to stop teaching and to help her with her writings. He, A. G. Daniels, and D. M. Canright were asked to help her.  They were shocked as to the things she asked him to do with her writings and how they were actually done. Prescott and Daniels found that they had to give up Fundamentalism. D. M. Canright gave up Mrs. White and joined the most extreme Fundamentalist church there was.

Also, I mentioned an infamous sermon by a minister a moment ago. Mrs. White took that sermon. Now the pastor saw inspiration as more of a subjective experience. Mrs. White changed it from more subjective to a very definite objective experience, but  that horrible sermon that caused that minister to loose his career has a portion became the forward to "Great Controversy" and more of it was used by Mrs. White to describe inspiration and is found in Selected Messages.

[Kevin H]

The article that this thread is about has 2 major problems: The first described already is how the author does not show knowledge of what higher and lower criticism actually are. He just assumes that one does not believe in the inspiration of the Bible and that the other does.

Then he goes on to say that those who support women's ordination are all higher critics. He is breaking the commandment "Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor." Unless the author repents he is going to have to face this article in the judgment.

There are many Bible believing people who use only lower criticism who support women's ordination. He is unfairly placing us all into the same boat and labeling us. He is offering his readers a choice "Now there are good people who believe the Bible and bad people who don't believe the Bible. Now the good people who believe the Bible oppose women's ordination. The bad people who don't believe the Bible support women's ordination. Oh no, many bad people who do not believe the Bible and thus support women's ordination have come into the church. Do you want to be one of these bad people? Or do you want to be a good person? If you are a good person then oppose women's ordination and let's get these bad people out of the church." 

I worry about an argument that is based on villainizing those you are arguing against.

[Gregory Matthews]

Kevin has stated much that is of value.

In some ways he has stated it in a more simplified manner that I would have done.  At the same time his simplified statement maintains accuracy as far as it goes.

 

I would add to "higher criticism" that it seeks to understand the meaning in the minds of the people addressed by the prophet.   Lower criticism does not.

 

Higher" criticism was looking at these styles to see how the Bible was written and lower criticism was the study of the finished product. We use both all the time with Mrs. White. We look at the sources she used and how her staff edited the work and study how she developed her ideas over the years. That is higher criticism. Lower criticism is the study of the finished product within itself. What was she saying in this passage.

[Gregory Matthews]

I will give you an example:

There is a famous verse, known to you-all, in the  Bible that tells us the Christ would be 3-days and 3-nights in the grave.  The  official SDA position involves Friday to Sunday, 2-nights.

That SDA position is based upon a basic foundational principle of higher criticism.

 

Edited September 10, 2015 by Gregory Matthews

[B/W Photodude]

I will give you an example:

There is a famous verse, known to you-all, in the  Bible that tells us the Christ would be 3-days and 3-nights in the grave.  The  official SDA position involves Friday to Sunday, 2-nights.

That SDA position is based upon a basic foundational principle of higher criticism.

Some count that back to the night he was captured and consider "heart of the earth" to be in the clutches of this earth. Prior, he was always able to walk away from danger. But this time he didn't resist and his period of three days and three nights started with his surrender to his being taken captive.

[joeb]

Clearly it was biblical that Ellen White should have stayed silent in the church and not sought to teach or to instruct males in Chrstian theology. I guess neither should Rachel Oakes Preston have shared theology on the Sabbath with the fledgling Adventist movement that convinced them of this truth either?

LOL.  Was Ellen White an ordained SDA minister?  No.  Was she ordained by God?  Yes.  She objected to being an ordained minister.  She could have been, but she said no. 

This idea that the importance of a person's work for God is diminished by not being ordained by a church is foolish.  The only "ordaining" that really counts is the one that comes from God.  Without it, no matter who the church ordains, that person's work accomplishes nothing, for they cannot share what they do not themselves have, and that is the personal knowledge of God.  Nothing else counts for anything if that is missing.  Without the Holy Spirit's blessing no individual's words can reach another person. 

We need people committed to Christ, not to the church.  We need people who will follow God and say what He directs, not what the church directs.  The church will never get us to heaven.  The church will never save us. 

I say, look to God for approbation, not man. 

[Tom Wetmore]

LOL.  Was Ellen White an ordained SDA minister?  No.  Was she ordained by God?  Yes.  She objected to being an ordained minister.  She could have been, but she said no. 

This idea that the importance of a person's work for God is diminished by not being ordained by a church is foolish.  The only "ordaining" that really counts is the one that comes from God.  Without it, no matter who the church ordains, that person's work accomplishes nothing, for they cannot share what they do not themselves have, and that is the personal knowledge of God.  Nothing else counts for anything if that is missing.  Without the Holy Spirit's blessing no individual's words can reach another person. 

We need people committed to Christ, not to the church.  We need people who will follow God and say what He directs, not what the church directs.  The church will never get us to heaven.  The church will never save us. 

I say, look to God for approbation, not man. 

I think you are kind of missing the point.  Regardless of ordination or not, a so called "plain reading" of Scripture (A simple counter-view to any fancy hermeneutic  whether higher criticism or not...) says that women should be silent in church, not teach men, or have authority over a man.  EGW did all of the above - frequently.  10,000 sermons in her lifetime.  Men still quote her writings as authoritative and to teach men.

But more significantly, give us a quote from her where she objected to being an ordained minister or where she herself said no to being ordained as a minister.  I think you will come up empty on both counts.  

[joeb]

What is higher criticism?  Ask the Jews.  They studied the Torah intently and used great intellect in their interpretations of scripture.   They devoted their entire lives to the study of the Torah.  What did it get them?  Complete and total failure.  When the very God of the Bible walked among them they rejected and hated Him.  

They used the higher criticism of their day.  They studied to prove how smart they were.  They studied to show how much they could prove about the Torah said.

What they didn't do is study the Torah to know God.  As a result no matter how much brainpower they used they didn't know God.  The higher criticism of today is no different, in principle.  You can study as much as you want about the Bible, about who wrote it, about the literary implications of the authors, hermenuetics, etc....  That's what the Jews did.  All it did was lead them into slavery to the devil. 

Jesus never got into arguing theology.  He just quoted the Bible and let truth found there be its own authentication.  He showed who His Father was from the Bible.  He showed what truth was by simply quoting it.  That plus He lived it.  

No amount of higher criticism ever came from the lips of Jesus.  And as He is to be our example in all things why should we follow the example of His enemies instead of HIs?  For that reason I'll reject higher criticism and do as I have always done when I've studied the Bible.  Study it to know God.  There is no other reason to study the Bible for the Christian.    Anything else is a waste of time and will most likely cause harm.

[Kevin H]

LOL.  Was Ellen White an ordained SDA minister?  No.  Was she ordained by God?  Yes.  She objected to being an ordained minister.  She could have been, but she said no.

 

We do not have an ordination for James White or some of our other pioneers. It is assumed that he might have been ordained by the Christian Connection (a church that did believe in ordaining women). but we don't know for sure. Some of our pioneers we know were ordained in their old churches. Others, like James, we don't know if they ever were or were not. However as our church started they were recognized as Elders and received ordination papers. Mrs. White among them.

[Kevin H]

Joeb: There is NOTHING in the Jewish study of the scriptures that could be considered higher criticism. They just would read the Bible and mediate upon the words and try to figure out what they meant with having lost the archaeology and history. They were doing what we too often tend to do. Read and pray for the Holy Spirit to impress upon their mind what it means. Then they built traditions and then built traditions upon their traditions.  So they started out with lower criticism and began speculating.

There are probably 3 ideas that it would be good for us to have clear in our minds: Modernism and Fundamentalism, Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology, and Higher and Lower criticism.

Much of what gives higher criticism it's bad name is how it has been abused by the Modernists. The Modernists formed during the 1800s with the rise of Evolution. They began looking for evolution in everything. They believed that the Bible was all fiction. That there was no literal Adam and Eve, no literal Abraham, no literal Moses etc. And they looked at say the 5 books of Moses and pointed out how higher criticism found different writing styles. They said "If Moses wrote all of this then why are there different writing styles. Therefore the writing styles proves that it was not written by Moses but by those other people."

Fundamentalists was the reaction to Modernism. They went to the other extreme. That not only did the people in the Bible exist but that since God is perfect his word has to be perfect, thus don't look at these different writing styles. They are only used to tear down the Bible. The Genesis through Deuteronomy as we have it is exactly the way it came from the hand of Moses and it was by God writing through Moses.

Our next pair are Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology. While we tend to use both, for some reason all of us are more attracted to one of these rather than the other. Which one depends on our makeup. Whether you are a Modernist, Fundamentalist, or trying to avoid those ideas you probably use more one or the other of these. The Systematic Theologian wants to go through the Bible to see what the Bible says about a particular topic and try to form a consensus.  A weakness that it has is while you may find proof texts for one thing, there may also be problems with the thing that the Bible is trying to bring up. Biblical Theology is to understand what is meant by a term or idea in one portion of the Bible. For example Systematic Theology would ask "What is the form of church government that the Bible teaches us to follow." A Biblical theologian would ask "What is the form of church government taught in Leviticus. Is this the same one we find in Deuteronomy or are they different and if so how are they different." Again while we tend to be born with a preference for one over the other, they are both useful tools in Bible study. Good and bad people use both tools in good and bad ways. I don't know if this was ever done but what could happen is you can have a Modernist look at Biblical Theology and say "Look there are differences between church government in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Thus it shows that they don't know what they are talking about and one of these are the more evolved answer." Or a fundamentalist (and actually they have done this) choose one set of key texts and ignore or explain away the other and says that "This is what the Bible gives as the ideal form of church government" and tries to completely follow which ever key texts they like. But a third possibility could be a systematic theologian looking at what the Biblical Theologian has to say and then try to figure out a compromise, which is what we find our church doing in 1901. Mrs. White and our other leaders used both tools and was able to work out an application of the Biblical principles that fit our church at the time.

Our last pair are Higher and Lower criticism: This is not "Better and worst" or any such nonsense. As I understand it they were both designed by the same people. People who loved God and the Bible. In the 1700s people were more noticeable of writing styles. And they noticed different writing styles in the Bible. Sometimes we would have a story told in one style and repeated in another. Sometimes we would find a whole story in one writing style but that it was interrupted by another writing style that gave more insight and commentary before returning to the other story. For some reason they called the seeing the different styles and how they were edited together "Higher Criticism" and studying the finished product was called "Lower Criticism." Even though the Adventist Theological Society said not to use any higher criticism; they still kept doing some. When we read a passage and notice that there was a poem brought in, or another verse of scripture quoted. We have to deal with the passage but with asking "what role does this poem or these Bible quotes play in the message of this author." Then when it came to studying Mrs. White it was a free for all of using both higher and lower criticism in equal portions.

I included these 3 pairs of approaches because we will run across these groups as we study. The first pair the unbelieving Modernist and the believing but with a Greek view of perfection are two attitudes for us to avoid. And much what we label "higher criticism" in a negative sense should not say "Higher Criticism" but "Modernism." Modernism and fundamentalism are attitudes we bring to the Bible.

Our second pair: Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology are different methods both useful and while most likely you won't be equally attracted towards the two but will probably find a preference for one or the other. They work together so enjoy the one you are naturally attracted to but work on learning what you can from the other.

And our last pair are the material we work with, being aware of the different writing styles and how and why they were edited together into the product we now have.

I hope you find this useful. And again No, we do not find the Jews in Jesus' day using any form of higher criticism. We find them starting out with lower criticism but then going way off base as they speculate and speculate on their speculations.

 

[Kevin H]

Oh, when we see Jesus saying to the Sadducees "I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" he was taking the source of how Genesis was taken into Exodus and thus makes those dead people as not permanently dead but will again be living. And we find Jesus pointing out two different sources on marriage and divorce. Thus in these cases, especially in his talk about marriage and divorce we find Jesus using higher criticism.

[pnattmbtc]

Kevin H: Thus in these cases, especially in his talk about marriage and divorce we find Jesus using higher criticism.

 

Another example:

43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; (Matt. 5:43-44)

 

[pnattmbtc]

Kevin and Pntc,

When you use the words of Jesus  to show examples of higher criticism you are making Joeb's point. Only Divine authority can enlarge or expand  on  Biblical principles.  This so called "progression" of Bible truth is not left to the determination of  fallen , erring man .

The Bible is its own best expositor and only scriptures can make clear more obscure scriptures. Bible truths transcend their historical ,racial and cultural settings . They are truths for all times and all people. The Bible were written for the common man and not for experts in archeology, ancient history or cultures to interpret for him.

One wise person  said “Common sense guides common readers…. We wouldn’t want to use a method of Bible study that would disenfranchise an uneducated traveling man. And why not? Because the Bible was also written for him. If our method places the Bible out of his reach, our method is flawed"

Mrs. White had this to say about "higher criticism."

But just as soon as some enter college and get a little bit of knowledge they think they know more than God. And you hear of the higher critics. Who is the Higher Critic? It is the Lord God of the universe, who has spread the canopy of the heavens above us, and has made the stars and called them forth in their order; that has created the lesser light, the glory of the moon, to come in its order and to shine in our world. And the higher critics come in. Who are they? Poor, finite man on probation to see if he will be loyal and true to God that he can stand under the blood-stained banner of Prince Emmanuel, and that he can become a child of God and an Heir of heaven. Talk of the critics, the higher critics. We have God; we have his Word in its simplicity.  {1SAT 255.1}

Satan is a cunning worker, and he will bring in subtle fallacies to darken and confuse the mind and root out the doctrines of salvation. Those who do not accept the Word of God just as it reads, will be snared in his trap.  {Mar 156.4}

 

 

Are you saying only a divine authority could know that one should love one's enemy?  Or that God was against divorce?  Actually Malachi flat out says, "I hate divorce", and there are texts in Scripture which deal with loving one's enemy, so I think Kevin's point was correct.

[pnattmbtc]

Hi pnattmbtc,

No, I am not saying that at all. I am saying that we should let scripture interpret scripture. Higher criticism, in general, interjects man's consideration of time, place and the prevailing culture of the inspired Bible writers in its attempt to  to understand Bible truth. The examples you gave above are truths derived from scripture alone.

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the clarification.  I'm not understanding your comment:

When you use the words of Jesus  to show examples of higher criticism you are making Joeb's point. Only Divine authority can enlarge or expand  on  Biblical principles. 

Especially I don't understand the comment about "Divine authority".  I don't see anything Jesus did differently in regards to Scripture than what we should do.  Actually, I do see something different in Jesus' interpretation of Scripture, which is that Jesus inferred an unspeakably beautiful view of God that no one had seen before, or has seen since (except in part, as Paul puts it, thanks to the work of Jesus).  But what Jesus did is what we should do, it seems to me.  What would be an example of "Divine authority"?  Especially in regards to divorce and loving one's enemy.  I'm asking this because you directed your comments towards what Keven and I said, which was in regards to theses points (i.e., in regards to divorce and loving one's enemies).

What I am understanding about the comments regarding higher criticism is that it's not so much the methods used where are a problem, but the ends to which these are used.  If we use techniques (involving understanding the writer's environment, literary analysis)  to better understand Scripture, so much the better, but if we use it to try to tear things down, that's another story.  And there's a fine line here, I realize, as man has a tendency to interject things which don't belong when doing science (the theory of evolution comes to mind here).

But to give a legitimate example, there is a whole that we miss when we don't understand the culture, such as what the sanctuary imagery means.  

[Kevin H]

Jackson:

Mrs. White's quotes are about how the Modernists were using higher criticism at the time, and I am in full agreement with her application. I also think that you missed the point of my quote. It is that Jesus pointed out two different sources used for the Old Testament. Not some kind of progression of Bible truth.

Here are a few other places where the Bible is using higher criticism and where it is used by fallen humans: Joshua 24:  ²⁶ And Joshua wrote these words in the book of the law of God,

We all know that Moses was the author of the book of the law of God. But here the Bible tells us that Joshua was authorized to speak for Moses and add to the book of the law. We also find the Samuel Compromise in Deuteronomy (I believe chapters 10-18). Higher criticism is only looking at how the books were edited.

The modernists were using higher criticism not as evidence of editing but turned the editors into the authors saying that people like Moses, Joshua and Samuel did not exist.

What higher criticism teaches are things such as: The prophet Amos went up to the northern kingdom and preached. He made comments about 6 of Israel's neighbors, these verses have a set form of poetry.  then in Amos 2: 4 and 5  you find some words about Judah which is in a different poetic form. Translators try to make it sound like the rest of the chapter but those verses were purposely written to stick out like a sore thumb. Then it talks about Israel and it returns to the original poetry.

7 was the special number. But here Amos ends up with 8 places with Judah being #7 and Israel being #8. What we find here is that this gives evidence that Amos went up to the northern Kingdom to warn them about the Assyrian destruction and telling them to repent. Amos had Israel as the 7th nation. Time went by and the Northern Kingdom was destroyed. Since Judah was delivered Judah felt that they were safe with God. But a prophet realized that  Judah was becoming guilty and that if they did not repent that they would be destroyed by Babylon. So this person took the book of Amos and preached a sermon on Amos but made applications to Judah and changed the focus to Judah needing to repent or she will end up in exile just like Israel. Again while the translators try to make the text read smoother someone who knows Hebrew can very easily see what Amos preached in Israel and the comments of the person applying the book of Amos to Judah. They were two very different forms of poetry.

Something like this is what higher criticism does. 

 

And once again you can't use higher criticism to support or not support women's ordination. You can't say "Hey if you read this text as a unity it  opposes women's ordination, but if you see one writing style here and another there TA-DAH there you find women's ordination.  It does not work that way.

[Samie]

I will give you an example:

There is a famous verse, known to you-all, in the  Bible that tells us the Christ would be 3-days and 3-nights in the grave.  The  official SDA position involves Friday to Sunday, 2-nights.

That SDA position is based upon a basic foundational principle of higher criticism.

Some count that back to the night he was captured and consider "heart of the earth" to be in the clutches of this earth. Prior, he was always able to walk away from danger. But this time he didn't resist and his period of three days and three nights started with his surrender to his being taken captive.

Pardon the intrusion of this layman, who knows nothing about lower and higher criticisms, but it appears to him that Jesus started the count from His crucifixion:

^KJV Mark 8:31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.

I don't know which criticism is employed, but consider the ff:

1.     Starting day:  Day he was killed.

2.     1 day after

3.     2 days after

4.     3 days after

 

Mark 16:9 says Jesus resurrected on “prwi> prw,th| sabba,tou” which to me is literally “early morning of the chief Sabbath”, prwi> being early morning, prw,th could be translated “chief”, and the genitive “sabba,tou ” which always refer to Sabbath, either a ceremonial Sabbath or the weekly Sabbath.  Since the Lord refers to the weekly Sabbath as My Sabbath, and the ceremonial Sabbaths as your Sabbaths, it seems that the chief Sabbath is the weekly Sabbath, Saturday. Hence this layman believes Jesus resurrected early Saturday morning.

If Saturday is 3 days AFTER he died, then, He was crucified Wednesday. 

And was it a mere coincidence that Tuesday night that paschal week in AD 31 was full moon?  Recalling that Passover is a full moon festival, this layman believes that Jesus, Who said He came to fulfill the Law which obviously includes the law on when Passover meal is to be eaten, ate Passover that full moon night, arrested that same night, and crucified the daytime that immediately followed, a Wednesday.  Three days and 3 nights later, as He Himself specified, He resurrected.

Day 1.  Daytime Wednesday         Night 1.  Nighttime Wednesday

Day 2.  Daytime Thursday             Night 2.  Nighttime Thursday

Day 3.  Daytime Friday                  Night 3.  Nighttime Friday until before sunrise Saturday

References, both biblical and astronomical, will be provided, if requested.

[pnattmbtc]

Pardon the intrusion of this layman, who knows nothing about lower and higher criticisms, but it appears to him that Jesus started the count from His crucifixion:

^KJV Mark 8:31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.

I don't know which criticism is employed, but consider the ff:

1.     Starting day:  Day he was killed.

2.     1 day after

3.     2 days after

4.     3 days after

 

Mark 16:9 says Jesus resurrected on “prwi> prw,th| sabba,tou” which to me is literally “early morning of the chief Sabbath”, prwi> being early morning, prw,th could be translated “chief”, and the genitive “sabba,tou ” which always refer to Sabbath, either a ceremonial Sabbath or the weekly Sabbath.  Since the Lord refers to the weekly Sabbath as My Sabbath, and the ceremonial Sabbaths as your Sabbaths, it seems that the chief Sabbath is the weekly Sabbath, Saturday. Hence this layman believes Jesus resurrected early Saturday morning.

If Saturday is 3 days AFTER he died, then, He was crucified Wednesday. 

And was it a mere coincidence that Tuesday night that paschal week in AD 31 was full moon?  Recalling that Passover is a full moon festival, this layman believes that Jesus, Who said He came to fulfill the Law which obviously includes the law on when Passover meal is to be eaten, ate Passover that full moon night, arrested that same night, and crucified the daytime that immediately followed, a Wednesday.  Three days and 3 nights later, as He Himself specified, He resurrected.

Day 1.  Daytime Wednesday         Night 1.  Nighttime Wednesday

Day 2.  Daytime Thursday             Night 2.  Nighttime Thursday

Day 3.  Daytime Friday                  Night 3.  Nighttime Friday until before sunrise Saturday

References, both biblical and astronomical, will be provided, if requested.

Just from the standpoint of logic, the early Christians believed Jesus was resurrected on Sunday, so even apart from considering other Scripture texts, how could they possibly have gotten that wrong, given that they were there when it happened?  It would be like getting the day of the week that Kennedy was assassinated wrong.

[Samie]

Just from the standpoint of logic, the early Christians believed Jesus was resurrected on Sunday, so even apart from considering other Scripture texts, how could they possibly have gotten that wrong, given that they were there when it happened?  It would be like getting the day of the week that Kennedy was assassinated wrong.

How sure are you that those present at Christ's crucifixion and resurrection believed it was Sunday when Christ rose from the grave?

My reading of both Biblical and astronomical data does not point to Sunday as the resurrection day of our Lord.  Have you noticed that all resurrection-related verses in the New Testament all used sa,bbaton which the Greeks derived from the Hebrew tB'v; shabbath?  In the Greek Old Testament, all occurrences of the genitive sabba,tou were all from tB'v; and never from [;buv' shabua` which is Hebrew for "week".