Why the Bible?

[Gregory Matthews]

Recently, in a national forum someone asked why in the age of science people still believe the Bible, the Koran and the Book of Mormon?

I posted the following response.  It should be noted that in writing my response, I formulated it for the probably non religious person who would be reading it:

 

Science deals with that which is known and can be demonstrated to occur today. It then interprets the past and predicts the future based upon that which can be demonstrated today. This limits what we can know about the past and the future to what we can demonstrate as happening today. As in the field of meta-physics there may be much in both the past and in the future that can not be explained within the limits of our knowledge today. As often as we search for answers that lie outside of what science can demonstrate today, we will look too sources of information that go beyond what science tells us. Those sources may include, even if not limited to, the Bible, the Koran and more.

 

[Kevin H]

Excellent!!!

[TrevorL]

Greetings Greg,

10 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Recently, in a national forum someone asked why in the age of science people still believe the Bible, the Koran and the Book of Mormon?

I notice that the original statement included the Bible, the Koran and the Book of Mormon. You seemed to avoid recommending the Book of Mormon, but I question whether the Koran is beneficial either. You politely or carefully stated "may include", possibly to avoid offending radical Islam.

11 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

As often as we search for answers that lie outside of what science can demonstrate today, we will look to sources of information that go beyond what science tells us. Those sources may include, even if not limited to, the Bible, the Koran and more.

Kind regards
Trevor

[Gregory Matthews]

I listed two of the sources that people do look to and were listed in the original question.  I did not  state a personal recommendation.  I simply responded to the question asked.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Greg,

9 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

I listed two of the sources that people do look to and were listed in the original question.  I did not  state a personal recommendation.  I simply responded to the question asked.

I appreciate that this was said in a particular context. For my part I have been conscious of the difference between Christianity and Islam because of the experience of two families. The first was in Pakistan, and although there is some tolerance of Christianity in Pakistan, because of some highlighting of the differences between the Koran and the Bible, one family had to flee to a neighbouring country, and after a few years without being able to work, they were given refugee status and are now settled in another country. Another Bible believer was imprisoned in Afghanistan and his family had no support. After about a year he was given refugee status and was released from prison so that he and his family could immediately travel to another country which had accepted his refugee status.

 

What I am suggesting is that the Bible and the Koran are not simply two alternatives, two paths, but the Bible is unique, and shows the true way of life. The more we become involved, the more the reality of this blessing becomes apparent.

 

As far as science is concerned and their false claim of evolution, the following are answers that are appreciated possibly only by those who have experienced the gentle hand of God in their lives. False science cannot explain the ability of every species of life being able to reproduce after its kind:

Genesis 1:11-12 (KJV): 11 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. 12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Romans 1:18-20 (ASV): 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hinder the truth in unrighteousness; 19 because that which is known of God is manifest in them; for God manifested it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse: 21 because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

 

Kind regards

Trevor

[Margie]

A few years ago i read an excellent book, Choose You This Day by Leonard R. Brand and Richard M. Davidson, on how  to accurately interpret things we see today to create a timeline for the earth. It is not either the Bible or the Science. When properly done it’s both coming together to give us a full picture.  The book even has a graphic to show how we should reference both the Bible and the science to build our interpretations  

One of the few things that stuck with me: not finding an animal in a fossil doesn’t mean it didn’t exist or had gone extinct. That is an example of science interpretations gone too far. 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

TrevorL:  In no way do I suggest that the Bible and the Koran are the same.  Again, my answer was built on the  question, which mentioned three books that are accepted by various people.  Those three are the same to the extent that they are considered by people to be authoritative.  But, it did not suggest that any of those people would consider all three to be equally authoritative.  IOW, it left open that each one person would consider one to be authoritative to the exclusion of the other two.

In regard to your experience in Pakistan:  I do not challenge your experience.  But, what we experience may often not be normative.  If  someone would judge Christianity by the Westboro Baptist Church in the United States, would you say that such was normative for Christianity in general.  In reality people often judge Islam by what they have experienced.  I understand that.  My wife once lived in a country that has a large Islamic presence.  Her views are not exactly the same as mine.  My views toward Islam stem from my reading of the Koran and the views of certain other Islamic scholars.

It should be noted that my understanding of the Koran does not come from what I think about it alone.  Rather, my views of the Koran come also from what is an official Islamic view of what each passage in the Koran actually teaches.   This means that as I read the Koran I also read an official Islamic commentary on that passage.

 

 

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Greg,

16 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

In no way do I suggest that the Bible and the Koran are the same.  Again, my answer was built on the  question, which mentioned three books that are accepted by various people.  Those three are the same to the extent that they are considered by people to be authoritative.  But, it did not suggest that any of those people would consider all three to be equally authoritative.  IOW, it left open that each one person would consider one to be authoritative to the exclusion of the other two.

In regard to your experience in Pakistan:  I do not challenge your experience.  But, what we experience may often not be normative.  If  someone would judge Christianity by the Westboro Baptist Church in the United States, would you say that such was normative for Christianity in general.  In reality people often judge Islam by what they have experienced.  I understand that.  My wife once lived in a country that has a large Islamic presence.  Her views are not exactly the same as mine.  My views toward Islam stem from my reading of the Koran and the views of certain other Islamic scholars.

It should be noted that my understanding of the Koran does not come from what I think about it alone.  Rather, my views of the Koran come also from what is an official Islamic view of what each passage in the Koran actually teaches.   This means that as I read the Koran I also read an official Islamic commentary on that passage.

I appreciate your comments. I accept that you have a wider understanding of the Koran. I suggest though that there is a difference between living in Pakistan and Afghanistan with the extent of their tolerance of Christians and living in a Western country and the usual religious tolerance. Those involved in Pakistan and Afghanistan are advised to keep a very low profile and avoid any preaching to Muslims or even open confession of their beliefs to even some relatives. Some of this is because of the difference between the teaching of the Bible and the Koran.

There is also a difference between Jesus and his example of non-resistance and voluntarily suffering crucifixion and the example of Muhammad and the use of violence by him and many of his followers. I understand that historically and often in the modern usage Allahu Akbar is not simply God is Great, but God is Greater, or God is the Greatest and that this has been used to justify violence from early days, and if necessary or where there is opportunity to suppress both Christians and Jews.

Yes there are extreme so-called Christians, but they seem to ignore Jesus’ teaching. I am not sure of the history of the early SDAs, but their present position is non-violence and non-participation in warfare. Baptists in general on the other hand have participated in warfare, including the Civil War, WW1 and WW2. As there was some link with Baptists and early SDAs, was there a gradual development of their conscientious position? Did some of the early SDAs participate in the Civil War? Baptists and SDAs cannot be equally correct on this aspect.

Kind regards Trevor

[Margie]

Good morning Trevor,

I love how a conversation can naturally change directions. I know I’m not Greg, but may I join anyway?

The SDA church grew out of an interdenominational movement and is pretty much linked to many other denominations as well as the Baptists. I would say that the SDAs developed its separatism approach long before the War.  There’s a paper published by Aurora University that speaks to the Millerite separatism, which is a well written paper (see below for the embedded link). 

The SDA Church was formally organized in 1863 when our country was in the throes of its Great War. So there was probably a great deal of conversation among our church membership about non-violence, although the term conscientious objector has not yet become a term. The way our church is structured I don’t see our church as having a formal position about anything until it has been extensively discussed and voted on. So to adequately research and answer your question we need to turn to both the Spirit of Prophecy and the Review and Herald (which I did this morning and most enjoyed the learning, thank you!). 

Ellen White had visions about the Civil War, the first one received before the War started, while she was at the Parkville church on January 12, 1861. Apparently at that time people didn’t believe a war would happen but Mrs. White saw it would. That kicked off a series of visions that showed the nature of the views held by the sabbath keepers toward the war.  Remember there was a draft in place and so Mrs. White spoke to the actions of sabbath keepers in response to an article “The Nation” published in R&H which after a quick Internet search I see was written by her husband James White. It seems to me that while they did not want to join the war, they saw God’s hand in it as well as Satan’s. I suggest you read this directly and let us know your thoughts. 

Resources used:

http://www.diggingfortruth.org/article/127/prophecy/spirit-of-prophecy-section/visions-of-ellen-g-white/the-civil-war-vision-1861

http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/egwtestimony_civil war.html

https://adventisthistory.wordpress.com/2008/06/14/the-nation-1862-by-james-white/

[Gregory Matthews]

Trevor L,  

I would agree with your comment at to the probably differences between Islam as practiced in Pakistan and in Afghanistan.  I would agree as that was exactly the point that I was attempting to make.

As a retired Army Chaplain I feel a need to comment on your comments as to SDAs and the military:

The Historical, early SDA position:

*  In the early days of our developing denomination, the government initiated a system by which males could be inducted into military service, but they could be released from that mandatory service by payment of a $300 fee.

*  Our developing denomination generally attempted to raise the $300 fee that released the person from military service.

* There was a 2-fold reason for the attempt to raise that fee:  1)  It was generally believed that military service violated both the commandment not to kill and the Sabbath commandment.  [NOTE:  The Sabbath issue was the same as faced by the Jews in the Intertestamental period.]   2)  Our developing denomination needed the leadership of those males who would have otherwise been forced into military service.     

*  In those early days, while we only existed in the United States, that was an easy situation.  The Government allowed for non-service.

*  The problems arose when in our missionary growth, we expanded into other countries which did not allow for non-participation in military service.

*  An example of this is found in the historical writings of our Church:   Two (2) men who worked in publishing SDA books were called up for required military service by their government.  EGW commented on this loss of their needed services.  But, she then went on to advocate the support that we should give then as a Church while they were doing their duty.  This incident has been a major influence for the SDA denomination today not taking the position that we should prohibit military service.

*  Further, we here in the U.S. may not realize the positon that some of the people have faced in the past.  Serving in a country that I will not name, I once had a male citizen of that country walk into my office.  He removed his shirt and showed me the scars on his back due to the beatings that he had  taken due to the religious position he had taken related to military service for his country.

The present SDA position:

* Three major positions exist today as to military service by our membership:  1)  Many SDA members believe in full service in any capacity with no limitations.  2)  Some of our members reject all military service with no participation at all.  3)  Other members believe in serving in a limited non-combatant capacity.

*  The official position of the SDA Church is two-fold:  1)  The SDA Church (congregation) is to provide pastoral care and support for  their members take any of the three positions that I have listed above.  They are not to be disciplined for taking any of those positions.  2)  It is recommended that SDAs take position # 3, but it is a recommendation and not a requirement.

*  Based upon my experience, in the 20 years that I served,  There have been large numbers of people who while related to the SDA Church, took position # 1.

*  However, growing numbers of people, as I see it, advocate position # 2.

On a personal Basis:

*  I would often have people come to me for advice as to whether or not they  could serve in the military.  I would ask them about their beliefs and understandings of Biblical teachings.  I would tell them that if they held to traditional SDA teachings, they could not serve and maintain those teachings in most positions in the military.

*  I would tell them that the  might be able to serve in a medical position and that they could serve in a chaplain position which did not include serving as a Chaplain's Assistant.

*  I would also tell them that if they held to traditional beliefs it would be harder for them, most of the time, to serve in a Reserve component, than it would be to serve on active duty although I would not recommend that.

*  As to military chaplains:

   1)  All military chaplains serve with the permission of their denomination, which for me was SDA.

   2)  They cannot become a military chaplain absent the permission of their denomination.

   3)  Their denomination has the legal right to remove them from military service, as long as they are not under criminal investigation and are not hospitalized, for any reason and the  individual so removed has no legal recourse outside of their denomination.  Chaplains so removed will likely be removed within a 14 day time-line, which is very quick for the government to act.

4)  The SDA Church has on a number of occasions decided to remove their clergy from the U.S. military.  Yes this has included someone under criminal investigation as the military has some strange laws which might not apply in civilian life.  In some of those cases the SDA Church has reached an agreement with the chaplain involved by which the chaplain resigned and left military service and on other occasions, the SDA Church has used the provisions of law and policy to remove a military chaplain.

5)  My military service includes:  1)  Two (2) years of active duty as an enlisted person, brought in under the draft as a conscientious objector.  2)  Eighteen (18) service as a commissioned officer and a chaplain on active duty.  3)  Additional service as a chaplain in the National Guard and in a Reserve unit.   At all times, except as a drafted enlisted person, I served only with the permission of the SDA Church and the Church had the power to remove me.

Margie:  "I was writing and posting this comment at the same time you posted your comment.  As your was shorter than mine, you got posted first.  In any case, welcome to this discussion.

 

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

 

The following URLs contain information on the SDA Church and military service.  I list them because I believe that they are of value.  I do not agree with everything that they say, but, I believe that they have something important to say.  E.G.  While I disagree with some of what Dr. Ronald Lawson has said, he has written some material on this subject, which in not in the listed URL and I consider important.

 

https://pacificador99.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/a-brief-history-of-us-sdas-military-service-v2.pdf

http://calltorepent.com/sdas-in-war-detailed-history/

http://fliphtml5.com/cevh/hvfu/basic

http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/MilitaryService.html

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Folks:  I consider this to be an important subject, that has gone in a different direction from the original post.  Therefore, I am going to transfer these comments to a different thread.  Please continue the discussion there.

I have now completed the transfer.  Please discuss SDAs and war in that thread and feel free to continue to discuss the Bible in this thread.

[stinsonmarri]

On 12/21/2017 at 5:59 PM, Gregory Matthews said:

Recently, in a national forum someone asked why in the age of science people still believe the Bible, the Koran and the Book of Mormon?

I posted the following response.  It should be noted that in writing my response, I formulated it for the probably non religious person who would be reading it:

Pastor Gregory: What you said to me was very understanding. Sometime when we comment we need to be careful what  we write and how we understand what the other person is saying as well. I had to learn it the hard way in another one the forums here. I truly believe Trevor misunderstood what you was addressing.

You stated: "Science deals with that which is known and can be demonstrated to occur today. It then interprets the past and predicts the future based upon that which can be demonstrated today" I feel that is what hypothesis and theory are! However I made the mistake in wording my sentence that I insulted someone. I am trying to be a little more careful now.  Scientist today are more concern with speculative data and mathematical equations. Are they intelligent, yes they are but so is Satan! Do some of their theories and hypothesis come true, yes but many do not and the spectrum is so wide.

When we deal with other religions we must still be respectful and mindful of their beliefs. I have a Koran and the Mormon Bible in my home. I also have a Tyndall, Tanakh and many other versions. Humbly being a Biblical Historian you study other religions and compare them to the Bible. I do want to say that all of us need to if you don't mind me saying; understand the differences in interpretation, understanding and knowledge along with transliteration. Remember the Bible is of no private interpretation it states seek understanding and knowledge. Even as SDA we become more acceptable to broad spectrum of things, then we did in the past. I hope this was helpful!

Blessings to all!

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Stinsonmarri:  You are always welcome to post here and to engage in discussion of whatever subjects interest you.

 

[stinsonmarri]

On 12/30/2017 at 6:07 PM, Gregory Matthews said:

Stinsonmarri:  You are always welcome to post here and to engage in discussion of whatever subjects interest you.

 

Thank you, but I also have to listen when I say something that offends someone. I know I take a stand on a lot of things. However, the truth do not serve its purpose if I come off condescending or superior to others. That is not my purpose and I want to be more careful how I read what others are saying and how to response back. That's my prayer and my service to my fellow people!

Blessings to All!