Loading...
Larger font
Smaller font
Copy
Print
Contents
  • Results
  • Related
  • Featured
No results found for: "".
  • Weighted Relevancy
  • Content Sequence
  • Relevancy
  • Earliest First
  • Latest First

    Chapter 4—Interpreting White’s Earth History Statements With Particular Reference To The Genesis Flood

    We now examine a brief case study of how we today might best interpret Ellen White’s comments on earth history, focusing primarily on the Genesis flood. We need, first of all, to review the source of her information regarding earth history. In at least three places regarding earth history we find White making the following claims: “I was then carried back to the creation and was shown that the first week, in which God performed the work of creation in six days and rested on the seventh day, was just like every other week.” 1Ellen G. White, The Spirit of Prophecy 1:85. (Battle Creek, MI: Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, 1870, 1877, 1878, 1884, 1969). Regarding the size of pre-flood animals she writes: “I was shown that very large, powerful animals existed before the flood, which do not now exist.” 2The Spirit of Prophecy 1:87. Finally, concerning geology White says: “I have been shown that, without Bible history, geology can prove nothing.” 3The Spirit of Prophecy 1:88. Thus, her information on the history of the creation and flood came, according to her claims, from divine visions regarding these historical events.IEGWEHC 4.3

    The above statements by Ellen White help to explain her strong conviction, evident in the following quotation, regarding the authority and reliability of God’s Word concerning earth history: “There should be a settled belief in the divine authority of God’s Holy Word ... Moses wrote under the guidance of the Spirit of God, and a correct theory of geology will never claim discoveries that cannot be reconciled with his statements.” 4Ellen G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets, 114 (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1890, 1958).IEGWEHC 4.4

    This statement also shows that the relationship between field evidence and the biblical account of the flood is a crucial issue. Commenting upon this point White writes, “relics found in the earth do give evidence of conditions differing in many respects from the present, but the time when these conditions existed can be learned only from the Inspired Record.” 5Patriarchs and Prophets, 112. Here White indicates that the implications which human research draw from field data can extend only so far and no further. In other words, the implications that a Christian geologist may draw from field data need to be informed and guided by biblical claims, i.e., by a worldview constructed by the Bible. This is an example of what today we would call a rejection of methodological naturalism in favor of creationist catastrophism. An example of Ellen G. White’s implied application of the latter model or worldview of catastrophism is that on one hand the relics or the fossils, which White describes as “men, animals, and trees many times larger than now exist,” 6Ibid. correctly establish that different conditions existed in the past than exist now. So far so good on the interpretation of field data and the biblical claims. On the other hand, according to Ellen White, if we were to claim that these same fossils show that life forms existed millions of years ago, we would be drawing an unwarranted implication from the field data. 7Ibid. Why would this be so? According to White, the answer lies in a statement-of-faith claim that “[i]n the history of the Flood, inspiration has explained that which geology alone could never fathom.” 8Ibid.IEGWEHC 4.5

    Explaining some implications of the historical event of the flood, White notes that during the Flood humans, animals, and trees were “buried, and thus preserved as an evidence to later generations that the antediluvians perished by a flood. God designed that the discovery of these things should establish faith in inspired history; but ... the things which God gave them [i.e., to us humans] as a benefit, they turn into a curse by making a wrong use of them.” 9Ibid. These words are encouraging regarding the relation of paleontology and the biblical record as intended by God. In other words, according to Ellen White, Deity encourages the search for and study of fossils, and actually intends that their discovery should help to ground personal belief in the historical reliability of the Genesis account of the creation and the Flood. This forcefully illustrates that White believed that the accounts of Genesis 1-11 are divinely intended to be interpreted historically, and not only theologically. Thus, according to Ellen White, the only true biblical understanding of the creation and the flood accounts is to interpret them as referring to empirical, historical events which are of interest to the natural sciences.IEGWEHC 5.1

    These quotations show us how Ellen White would have us interpret her statements on the Flood today. It seems that she would have us take her flood comments by faith as divinely given insights into the true historical nature of what happened during the Genesis flood. These insights can help to formulate sound, scientifically responsible field research projects. Thus, her statements not only serve us devotionally, they are also profitable in supporting the only truly biblical interpretation of the creation and the flood. 10Karen K. Abrahamson, John T. Baldwin, “Ellen G. White on Creation and Evolution,” Andrews University Theological Seminary, July 2003.IEGWEHC 5.2

    Viewed in the light of her statements on time and the flood presented above, we can safely say that were Ellen White alive today, she would hold to a recent historical creation week and a global flood even in the face of challenges presented by radiometric dating and paleontological research. She would encourage us to persevere in faith in the historical reliability of Genesis 1-11, and to pursue research informed accordingly.IEGWEHC 5.3

    In conclusion, we note that while Ellen G. White’s comments concerning earth history may produce a crisis today, (as Christ’s comments demanded hearing and discernment in His time) that crisis can result in healthy discussion that ultimately strengthens the church body by promoting Christ as Creator, Lord of the creation-commemorating Sabbath, and King of Eden restored.IEGWEHC 5.4