My Faith's Resting Place - God's Word or Science?

My early days of ‘rediscovering Adventism’ were particularly interesting and full of joy. This was from 2014 to around 2015.  Until then, I hadn't really experienced the joy of being an Adventist because I was merely an Adventist by birth or by association. Now I was an Adventist by conviction, and this was so exciting. I really loved studying our ADVENTIST books and literature, and I wasn't getting enough of it. The Spirit of Prophecy writings by Ellen G. White were particularly inspiring and enriching, and I was always looking forward to the Sabbath.

However, my honeymoon did not last long. I soon realized that there was controversy in almost every teaching/doctrine in the Adventist church. For each teaching, there were at least two versions. Whether it was the 1888 Message, the Sanctuary, Investigative Judgment, 2520 and prophetic periods, Covenants, the nature of Christ, the definition of Sin, Church leadership, the Spirit of Prophecy, the health message, or just about everything, there was something controversial. For someone excited and rediscovering Adventism, I was disappointed and, at times, confused.  In all these debates and controversies, every person quotes the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy writings.  Of course, they quote what is convenient to them, and there is always something for everybody.

During that period of confusion and seeking grounding, I happened to read two books that took me right into the midst of the controversies. ‘Must We Be Silent’ and ‘Receiving the Word’, both by Samuel Korateng Pipim. Of all the controversies one could expect, I did not expect the Bible and Creation to be controversial.  In the controversies, it had appeared to me that at least we had the Bible and Creation right, and we were joyfully commemorating GOD’S Creation through the weekly Sabbath. Appearances can be deceiving! With continued study, and to my sorrow, it became evident to me that, just as there were divergent views on every teaching in Adventism, CREATION and the interpretation of the Bible were deeply controversial. Honestly, this wasn't what I signed up for.

‘Truth by definition is mutually exclusive’. If A is Truth, B is obviously false, and here I am faced with inclusivity and pluralism on everything. It was a bit sickening.  One thing led to another, and I began a journey trying to understand biblical interpretation and CREATION. I had thought it was simple and obvious until I started considering materials from Adventist scholars on Creation and the Genesis accounts. There are scores of materials on this debate that one can get from the many FAITH AND SCIENCE CONFERENCES that have been held by the General Conference and a few other local conferences of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

From the outset, it was clear to me that, depending on the school of thought one subscribed to, the accounts of Genesis Chapter 1 through Genesis Chapter 11 could be interpreted differently by different readers. Creationism and biblical interpretation were at the center of this controversial debate. Is the Creation account in Genesis Chapters 1 and 2 literal, chronological, and historical, and did it occur in six literal 24-hour days? Alternatively, is the account poetic and allegorical? Is the Creation account Theology or Science? Is the Bible really interested in telling us the how of Creation or the Who? I was being confronted with “The Many Faces of Adventist Creationism’ and "The Conflict Over Origins."

In my search I came across statements like, "Concerning historical and scientific matters, the Bible is errant; it contains myths; its purpose is salvation, not science”. This was concerning. In addition, the explanations of days being long geological ages spanning millions of years were not convincing. The Creationists were convincing in their arguments for a literal six-day creation, except for only one ‘small’ problem: they could not give a satisfactory explanation of what a day is without ‘fixing’ themselves. The creationists borrowed their definition of what a ‘day’ is, and it came with borrowed troubles I thought they should have foreseen.

Their definition of day being the time it takes the Earth to complete one full rotation on its axis around the SUN immediately raised an obvious question.  How can one have a first, second, and third literal "day" before the creation of the SUN? How do creationists reconcile the Sun-centered definition of day with the fact that a literal chronological reading of Genesis puts the creation of the Sun on the fourth day?

In my mind, something had to give; either reject the literal and chronological reading of the Genesis Creation account or solve the ‘Solar-based day’ issue.  On this issue, the Adventist CREATION scholars didn't help much. From my reading of their arguments and explanations, I understood them to be saying that the biblical six-day Creation has a few ‘scientific problems,’ but it is not a reason to abandon it. I was not impressed. I had to find answers for myself.  Remember, I had already read ‘Receiving the Word’, ‘Must We Be Silent ’, and in my studies about the one true GOD I had come across ‘Miller’s rules of Bible interpretation’. So giving up a literal, chronological reading of the Genesis creation account wasn't an option for me.  Where do I go from here?

My next logical step was to try to understand the SOLAR SYSTEM/heliocentric model, and as providence would have it, my feet wandered into ‘unfamiliar territories’ or, should I say, into “conspiracy theories’ as views that are against the official narratives are commonly called.

 In my studies of the heliocentric model, I learned that the theory/model emerged during Rome’s Counter-Reformation efforts.  The resurgence of the Bible and its translation into the languages of the people led people to look more to the Bible than to the Papacy, so the Catholic Church had to turn men's faith away from the Scriptures in order to bring them back under the Papacy's control.  What better way than to teach men that the Genesis creation account is poetic and allegorical, with no literal chronological order? Introducing ‘learning against learning’, they say. This was similar to my early troubles in Adventism, where there was controversy in every teaching/doctrine. Here, the JESUITS have been brilliant at overwhelming us and keeping us in constant dispute, as planned.

“Since printing cannot be put down, it is best to set up learning against learning, and by introducing all persons to dispute, to suspend the laity between fear and controversy. This at most will make them attentive to their superiors and teachers.” - Cardinal Wolsey.

To me, this debate on the GENESIS CREATION ACCOUNT, BIBLICAL COSMOLOGY, and THE HELIOCENTRIC MODEL of cosmology has not been merely about science (the good and the bad). It is a matter of biblical inspiration, authority, and interpretation.  ‘Jesus answered him, "What do the Scriptures say? How do you interpret them?" Good News Translation, LUKE 10:26.

As Ellen White puts it,

“…those who leave the Word of God, and seek to account for His created works upon scientific principles, are drifting without chart or compass upon an unknown ocean. The greatest minds, if not guided by the Word of God in their research, become bewildered in their attempts to trace the relations of science and revelation…” Patriarchs and Prophets pg.113.4.

When scientific findings conflict with the literal reading of Scripture, do I make science the yardstick and hold Scripture hostage to current scientific interpretations of data? Should scientific knowledge inform and shape my understanding of Scripture, or should biblical knowledge inform and shape my understanding of Science?

I will conclude with the common story of ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes.’ It is the story of a proud, vain emperor obsessed with fancy new clothes. One day, two conmen visited the emperor, pretending to be fashion designers, and offered to supply him with magnificent clothes invisible to anyone who was incompetent or stupid. When the emperor paraded around in invisible clothes, no one said anything because everyone assumed that if they couldn't see the clothes, they were stupid, ignorant, or insane.  Every adult was ‘seeing’ the ‘invisible clothes,’ and the sham continued until a child exclaimed,

"The emperor has no clothes!"

The heliocentric theory and other modern scientific theories have become so popular and widely accepted that it is difficult to question them without being branded as "ignorant, stupid, or insane."  Who will dare say that ‘the emperor is naked'? A child will say it. God will have children who will read the language of scriptures and accept it in its literal simplicity.  ‘Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts." — Isaiah 28:9 KJV

There has been a long-term and sustained attack on the true science of God’s creation. I have had to choose. God’s Word or ‘science falsely so called’. Evolution, the Big Bang theory, and the spinning globe in the heliocentric model are closely intertwined. This always flew under my radar. How was I not seeing it? The Big Bang theory is an inseparable part of the science needed to sustain the heliocentric model.  One cannot effectively and fully be ‘exorcised’ from the magic of evolution without first discovering that the heliocentric model laid the groundwork for evolution.

Our loving heavenly FATHER is good; He is near, not billions of light-years away; He has His throne just above the firmament, and is constantly observing and taking care of the inhabitants of Earth below. "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork." KJV, Psalms 19:1, and truly, "GOD’S word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path" (Psalm 119:105, KJV).

“Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty. Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain: Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind:…WHO LAID THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE EARTH, THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE REMOVED FOR EVER.” Psalms 104:1-5

I do not have all the answers yet, but yes, my faith has found a resting place, not in a manmade creed but in the written word of God.