Leaving Seventh-day Adventism
“Even when we’re right, we’re wrong.. still”. This fast is becoming the modern Christian proverb.
Something happened to me in the past few weeks. I received an email from the Seventh Day Adventist (SDA) church to which I have sent a formal request to remove my name from their membership records, as I would be joining the Seventh Day Baptist denomination. The message stated that perhaps they were going to take disciplinary action against me if I were to remove my name, and that I should keep my name on the books to avoid it. This was the advice of the secretary, who said she would need to confirm with the pastor.
A big fear welled up in me. Had the day come for them to show me a firm hand based on my rejection of their faith? Was it because I create media and there is such a big movement away from the church currently? Would it be because they needed to make me seem like I left because I was living in sin?
I was really worried they weren’t going to be fair, but it was not yet, not with this group. I explained why I wanted to leave the SDA church in a follow up email, pointing them to my first article about my concern for the SDA church. A few days later they responded kindly, saying the pastor saw no reason for disciplinary action.
I believe my articles have a good spirit about them, and these things need to be discussed. Certainly I’ve never spoken openly about the things I have written here while I was attending their church, and I have always remained in good standing. I’ll count it a blessing that so far my seas have been calm in that regard.
This doesn’t mean that each person will have the wisdom or Gods blessing for peaceful navigation during times like these. Often it has to do with the specific church or the history of the person involve. I have spoken with several others who have had a bad experience, and while I wasn’t there for the full story, I have a lot of personal experiences with forceful SDA churches that make me cringe.
For example: I have sat in conservative SDA churches while they talk in class about how the churches outside of their denomination are full of demons (relying on Rev 18:2) because they have not accepted the SDA faith. This is primarily based on early Millerite pastors as well as the SDA teachings about being the only true bride of Christ, as well as many statements including from EGW that rejection of her own writings is Satanic. God knows they did mean well, but I have found it to be another sign that pride is alive and well there.
I now believe that the time has come where no church should capable of legitimately pressing on people if their reasons are based on knowledge that isn’t making them reject Christ.
SDAs teach (I have taught it with them) about how in Revelation 14:4 the 144,000 saved men from the earth who never see death are not defiled by women, and how this symbolically references “churches” [as well as any group of people] which are sometimes referenced as “women” in the bible [5]. That these 144,000 follow Christ alone and not the false teachings of their individual churches.
They have a good point. There is plenty of room for the passage to be interpreted this way, but it also opens the door for no denomination to be immune from this category. Do we follow Christ or do we follow Seventh day Adventism (Adventism)? Is Adventism the ultimate pinnacle of the Christian faith?
As I wrote in My Concern for the Seventh-day Adventist Church Part 1: Their anti-biblical [and post 1844] belief in EGWs prophecy that an angel came with news that God would come back within the lifetime of those present with her -but then took a rain check on the promise- is alone reason enough to formulate that Adventism is then also a “woman” trying to defile those who obey her interpretation.
And to the Adventists: i am not willing to condemn you, but it took knowing these things to know what I needed to do.
This isn’t just a Seventh day Adventist problem, this is a faith in God problem, and the defilement affects all of the denominations one way or another — whether through the disregard of liberalism our punitiveness of conservatism [being only two examples]. These are signs that it should be back to basics for all of us. Focus on love, the behaviors that support it, and the statistical trend keeping Gods law in spirit brings to societies and individual souls who follow it. According to Hosea 4:6, this too is knowledge.
Throughout the history of people trying to understand God, we’ve been repeatedly confounded as later generations refined their understanding of Him. There was a time when what looked like genocide was taken as God’s will—perhaps seen as necessary for survival in a brutal age—but then came the Son of God, who spoke nothing like that.
Here we go again. Even when we’re right, we’re still wrong..
A Burden For Us All To Bear
Regardless of anyone’s stance on any of the subjects I have been writing about, it should be easy to understand that we’re looking at some of the reasons why some people who once held firm are going to fall from the faith. And yet again, for some of us, finding and talking openly about a reason to stay [in light of this new evidence] is the reason that some others who couldn’t have had faith otherwise will now be able to. To God be the glory for those who do become grafted in where others have been removed.
Rather than dwell on Adventist specifics, let’s recognize that those in wider Christianity are also going through similar things. It’s because humanity is entering a new period where yesterday’s misconceptions are no longer hidden or easily concealed from those who are inquisitive.
I want to ask the broader question: Is Scripture’s account of human origins meant to be read literally or symbolically? This is the pressure point driving many from conservative churches. It’s a cross-tradition question: Is faith built only on the text—bracketed off from history and genre—or on the text and what Scripture says creation reveals about God (Ps 19; Rom 1:20)?
I know some are going crazy already. "Oh no! He's going to say something Satanic", they'll think. Its fine, you can leave, but this is what it took for some of the faithful to continue growing. I'm not necessarily going to say you have something in your eye, just try to help some others. Or stick around and you'll find out that maybe this has been necessary.
When I consider the implications of the new evidence discussed here on Hispattern.com — scientific or otherwise — I see it as truth for its time. Sometimes that truth may be provisional, meant for a particular era, and sometimes it may prove to be eternal. But then we must ask: what does “truth for its time” mean? Is it the ancient belief in a flat earth? A young earth? Or the reality that humanity has always struggled to grasp the cosmos, even while God remains Creator over it all?
The reality is that some of God’s servants simply will not have the eyes to see or the ears to hear beyond where they’ve landed. And that’s not usually a problem when they seek to remain in meek faithfulness. None of these aforementioned interpretive positions, however, define biblical apostasy. Yet history shows that those who came first often branded those who came after as apostates. Martin Luther himself bore that label.
At times there can intent to oppress knowledge, when someone has been pre-conditioned not to be able to accept new paradigms. If they do this without love it can be similar to the priests in Jesus time, saying he had a demon, or that he was a drunkard and a glutton.
Yet not everyone would be guilty in trying to derail what is becoming common knowledge if perhaps they just need more time. Perhapse this will trend towards the type who play fair. Blanket statements like those rooted in early Millerism that labeled other churches or dissidents as simply filled with demonic influence would not be on a level playing fair.
Let’s be straight. Keeping the commandments of God [which define the limits loving behavior won’t cross] and the faith of Jesus, are as relevant now as they were before God prepared some of us to accept the reality of our new mission. I see this as an eternal truth.
How much more relevant is keeping the commandments and faith of Jesus when we don’t know who is who or what is what? I mean, as long as we have love in our hearts –Otherwise, beyond us being wrong [still], we are nothing (1 Cor 13:2).
Beyond that, how do we know what is right? And well, there are some things that are always going to be right across the entirety of eternity. That starts with love (Galations 5:22-23)
Regardless of what we may understand someday, I find it essential that we remain adherent to the basic principles of love, given in writing as early as the book of Exodus. For if Jesus did it –if he himself taught it– then we should also (1 John 2:6). It is here where we can expect to be tested.
Many of those who consider themselves part of the elect chosen by God will say we still can’t be accepted into heaven based on what they perceive as apostasy. Yet like an early Christians being chastised by a Jew, we must bear it, and not resist other than to shine our light somewhere else.
Light is shining on the fact that neither the Jews nor the early Christians were able to grasp [nor were they able to once bear] the reality of where we’ve come from and how it pertains to God’s harvest. Recently it has been shining bright as day on the matter. Some will continue saying there are plenty of ways to doubt such knowledge –but he who has eyes to see, let him see, and for he who has ears, let him hear.
The debate is deep, and will continue. I doubt I am here to so much convince those holding onto the past in generation, but more to prepare the way for a future one to remain faithful to core principals while accepting the reality of where we are.
The argument from conservatism (and I am neither liberal nor conservative) is often passed as an issue of some just not believing in the character of God or in infallibility of the scriptures. Proponents say there is no biblical narrative or defense for the evidence, but please, keep reading my series on young earth creationism and its flood problem, because that has been changing –not because any of us want it to, but because it has to.
This following video is a strong example of what I’m talking about. The new evidence I am wring about is in complete harmony with Dr Hugh Ross [a Christian himself] — but by the end of this video, Dr Terry Mortenson tries to bring in infallibly of the scriptures and lack of biblical evidence. –Without regard for genre or intent of the writers.
There is however, biblical evidence, which puts Dr Mortenson’s argument in the territory of fallibility of interpretation, intent of authors, and who wrote given passages in the first place.
I get that we had the perfect redemption story before evidence of deep time messed up everything —but we still have the redemption story and the promise of eternal life. Jesus said there was news his followers wouldn’t be able to bear, and that when the Spirit of Truth comes that he will convict us of sin and glorify Him.
I think we all recognize that the character of God will be doubtful for some, and as such they will want to leave or change the faith entirely rather than glorify what Christ has done. If that’s the battle we now face, then I will resolve to face it.
“I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you."
There have been things that perhaps we have been unable to hear from the mouth of Jesus because Christians would not have been able to bear it yet. I say this generally, because a large swath of the Christian faith has already generally accepted a similar understanding of earths history.
Again, some might say, “well, those Christians denominations are unfaithful”. Though maybe Paul was onto something when he mentioned to the Corinthians that we should rather focus on what we agree on. The day has come when some of us who would have been otherwise categorized as “faithful” by ultra conservatism, are going to remain in said faithfulness and also going to accept current knowledge [evidence we can seven see with our eyes] as truth and update our faith accordingly.
Someone might say, "Well Eve was fooled by what she saw". Meanwhile this debate is not over whether God is a liar, or that we don't need Him, or against any other core principal for that matter. It's actually more about who's been writing the bible, when, and how that pertains to Christ.
To be able to do so is within the bounds of the scriptures, but it is seemingly infinitely debatable for those who are afraid of accepting what it means. Surely its implications are capable of being all the more difficult to accept. The implications were for me too, before accepting that we better get busy searching out the matter if the scriptures aren’t going to be undone (John 10:35).
It is the glory of God to conceal a matter;
to search out a matter is the glory of kings.
Jesus knew there was more to tell us. We should remember it was not going to be his job to say it though –except maybe through parables where it would be safely concealed until the time was right. A prophecy about the Messiah from Isaiah shows us Jesus was here to teach us to exercise our faith, and that he wouldn’t say anything that would diminish it.
“A bent reed He will not break off And a dimly burning wick He will not extinguish; He will faithfully bring forth justice.
Jesus himself said there was more to understand and that the burden would have been too great to share it before it’s time. These burdens are then bound to happen when the time is right, when believers can bear it, and meanwhile Christ will be glorified (John 16:14).
Know your Prophets
The first 11 Chapters of Genesis were likely written long after the original five books of the prophet Moses (the Pentateuch) had been established, or even after the time of Solomon for that matter [8].
Certain vocabulary in Genesis 1-3 is used elsewhere only in books written during the monarchy or later. You won’t be able to use a Strong’s Hebrew Concordance for these either, because Strong groups a series of similar meaning Hebrew words (IE: ba-ḥă-mū-ḏōw and neḥmād) under one number. It’s not granular enough to show the etymology (the change) of words over the spans of hundreds or thousands of years. Bible Hubs Hebrew section can be useful for this if you need further proof.
Here are only a portion of the examples:
- ʾēd (a mist, Genesis 2:6)
- neḥmād (pleasant, Genesis 2:9; 3:6) — Genesis 49:15 uses an entirely different word, while other early references start with “ta’ or use an entirely different word as well. Solomons books though, start using nehmad.
- tāpar (sew, Genesis 3:7), ʾ
- ēbāh (enmity, Genesis 3:15),
- šûp (bruise/wound, Genesis 3:15)
- ʿeṣeb (labor, Genesis 3:16&17, 5:29) [not used elsewhere],
- tĕšûqāh (longing, Genesis 3:16).
The word Shinar (Genesis 10:10; 11:2), was used by nations outside Mesopotamia “to designate the Kassite kingdom of Babylon (ca. 1595-1160 B.C.E)”; [3] consequently its use here indicates Genesis 11 was written no earlier than the date of that kingdom.
In regards to places: Genesis 11:28, 11:31 (the family of Terah and Abram is from “Ur of the Chaldees”). The Chaldea became a people in the time when Solomon was building the temple, and were actually immigrants from lands closer to Canaan [1].
Nineveh – Genesis 10:11–12 (Nimrod “built Nineveh”). Historically, Nineveh only became a major Assyrian city in the 8th–7th centuries BCE, centuries after the supposed “time of Nimrod”, leaving the location too insignificant to have been referenced by the prophet Moses. While Niniveh was built into a proto-city around 4500-4000 BCE with an area of about 0.4 square kilometers in size, archaeological survey evidence shows that Nineveh existed before this period as a small farming village between 6100 and 5100 BCE [2].
Either Nimrod built a farm, or he didn’t build anything at all. then, because we can’t explain the layers below the time he should have been living. Conclusion, he didn’t build it.
If we get into writing styles, Genesis chapter 1 (Priestly Source [7]) and 2 (Yahwist Source [6]) appear to have been written by different authors, neither of which write like the rest of Genesis. Many scholars believe that the origin story in Genesis, while based on the account in the 10 commandments (Exodus 20:11), was written post return from Babylon. The logic being that similarities throughout plus sentence structures in Noah’s flood account almost exactly copy word for word sentences in the epic of Gilgamesh [4].
**Understanding this may be necessary when considering Moses is to remain a prophet who spoke directly with God. What was written on the tablets of stone is creation happened in seven periods of time, but there was no explanation outside of that.
I have read several debates with study sources on the matter- and the ultimate conclusion is that out of Israels many neighbors, it was Babylons who had a fully developed origin story, which may have sparked some desire for Israel to have their own upon returning from captivity.
Upon returning to Israel with many generations being born in Babylon, all of the constituents had been exposed to the Ziggurat [tower] of Babel (Etemenanki) and Babylonian tales such as the flood in the Epic of Gilgamesh. The origin story then makes sense as an answer to what they had learned abroad, bringing all of their working knowledge back into Gods hands in their eyes, by tying in the 7 day statement from the 10 commandments, as well as their known genealogy.
Jesus never referenced Adam and Eve by name in the bible, which I find interesting. Adam, also being the name for “humanity” in Hebrew.
I’ve previously written about how the Noahs ark story has an odd match with a pregnancy sequence, –from Noah entering the ark to the dove coming back with an olive branch in it’s mouth [the earth bearing it’s fruit]– being that it matches the time for a due pregnancy from start to finish. This odd symbolism really does make more sense when we realize the origin story was not from Moses but an attempt of multiple authors trying to explain the connection between natural and the supernatural in a way that they all understood as “truth for today”.
**this does not diminish Jesus' reference to the names of Noah or Abel, for "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction" (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Maybe just literal all-inclusive historical value is not an exact criteria for the primeval history narrative in Genesis.
My point is, there is little room for anyone in the faith to judge another Christian on this matter, no matter how faithful you are considered to be.
Edification
So here we are, some churches do say if we’re not with them then we are to be disciplined or even rejected by God. “We”, again referencing those who are to remain faithful. and through that may our love be perfected. However, we are being led by God to be able to accept that more matters are yet to be searched out, and Christ will be glorified. A sort of early rain if you will.
There’s a reason. In realizing there is a path where we can know the truth, even if it’s only the best we can achieve for its time, we can be some of the first to lay some of these bricks on the foundation Christ first established. It will perhaps also be a path with a lot more love.
In light of the evidence: men, inspired by God tried to gave us the best reasons they could for the human history – the story of Adam – a Hebrew word which already was used as the word for “Mankind”. Meanwhile, none of the major prophets speak of the fall of Adam or Eve, and only referenced God as the creator of everything. (the frameworks from the prophets that probably helped build the Genesis creation and fall story after they were written deserves it’s own blog article).
Someone is bound to say kə-’ā-ḏām in Hosea 6:7 and Job 31:33 was actually a reference Adam and the fall, but the kə- artifact is only a inseparable proposition meaning 'as/like/according to' (see -right side- occurrences for Strongs #120). Meanwhile "אָמָד (ʾāḏām) is used approximately 552 times in the Hebrew canon to denote humankind. In both instances and others (ie: Psalm 82:7) kə-’ā-ḏām plainly says "like mankind". To then understand what it truly says in these instances, we must understand both the intent of scripture, and the evidence behind the matter before coming to conclusions. This leaves little room for personal interpretation. It's possible Gods prophets had it right -- plainly, mankind is known for being broken.
Why would the prophets not give the details on a fall, the flood, or a first man? Why was Jesus never referenced as referring to Adam and Eve as the first to have existed, but only “they” (referencing Genesis chapter 2). I believe the evidence is three fold, the prophets, Jesus, and the scientific record are actually in harmony.
Maybe we should look closer at the words of Jesus when it comes to our origins.
And [Jesus] was saying, “The kingdom of God is like a man who casts seed upon the soil; and he goes to bed at night and gets up by day, and the seed sprouts and grows--how, he himself does not know. The soil produces crops by itself first the blade, then the head, then the mature grain in the head. But when the crop permits, he immediately puts in the sickle, because the harvest has come.”
Some will want to see this movement do well, and they’ll know they would do it if they could, but for them it is not well understood. For the rest, we can leave it up to the Most High. Stay faithful.
Jokes on all of us it seems. God is here for His harvest, He’s been looking for the willing, those pearls worth keeping, something he can work with. Potentially never exactly right, but faithful through the sacrifice of Jesus.
Who, having true Love, would have a problem with putting Love first? Things like never letting go of love, or just saying Love will always rule us just for the vanity of it, or like having guaranteed rest on a weekly basis (God was the first to implement workers rights), or a good home life, no murder, no infidelity, no stealing, no lying, no jealousy over what is not rightfully our own. All of these things are encompassed in the two greatest commandments – Love God, and love your neighbor. Yeah, so basically we are all unloving to some degree.
Those practices and a lot of other good things flourish where God is present, and that’s why through the knowledge of sin came a law, something to reveal to us the limits love is bound to. The law that revealed our trespass which exceeded limits that Christ ultimately paid the price for, removing the condemnation it brought.
Something we can all agree on as Christians is that God has been preparing mankind by showing them their weakness, teaching them the difference between what was right and wrong, and letting the refinement of that understanding mature over time. God’s Son was here to show us the crop was almost ready, to prepare a way for us to become redeemed, to prove the existence of God is real, and that he is going to return for his people just before there would be noting left to save.
Christ has overcome darkness and death alike. These will have no power over us in that place to where we’ll go. Love, it’s going to be portable. Stay right there and you’ll never need to be found to be wrong.
If this ministry sits well with you. it may be time to shine your light too. get in touch, I'd like to hear from you.
All content here is original. Please use attribution if you’re re-posting it on your own blog..
Citations
- Nordhoff, Sebastian; Hammarström, Harald; Forkel, Robert; Haspelmath, Martin, eds. (2013). “West Semitic”. Glottolog 2.2. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
- Kuyunjiq / Tell Nebi Yunis (ancient: Nineveh) Archived 2020-11-05 at the Wayback Machine colostate.edu
- Sayce, Archibald Henry (1895). Patriarchal Palestine, pp. 67-68.
- Nigosian 2004, p. 40.
- Cf. [compare this with] the woman in chap. 12 and the harlot in chap.17, Jezebel in 2:20, furthermore, 2:14 and 18:2.4.
- Collins 2018, p. 71.
- Coogan & Chapman 2018, p. 48.
- Gmirkin 2006, pp. 240–241.
- [Extract from a sermon at the General Conference of 1883, appearing in Notebook Leaflets, The Church, No. 6.]
