Once a text or series of texts has been interpreted to mean something specicially it can't later be reinterpreted to mean something that causes a mutation of the original interpretation - so that it could be said "truth mutates". Truth is absolute so if I were to call my beliefs a creed this would be at the top of my theological list.



Official Church teachings ALWAYS start exactly the way you just described above and if not put down they naturally become official belief.



I will do my best to make it so you don't feel that way. I want to meet the issues full speed and take the strongest part of the issue into the ring.



I've considered the point you make about "the fall of man" & long ago became at peace with it. The Bible, in no uncertain terms claims that there was "no possibility" of failure in Christ - as in absolutely zero chance of failure. The eternal Son of God was a sure bet if ever there was one YET Sister White took great pains to provide us with the real truth of the matter - who knows what's happened to the Bible over the last 2000 years - we have a Prohet who actually witnessed the actual events just like she was there!

Example:

"Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompence; he will come and save you" Isaiah 35:4

If that was God talking He is saying He would come AND save us.

"Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people" Luke 2:29

That indicates the Son was selected for this "before" the creation of the world, or, as Scripture puts it certainly prior to "people". There are MANY other such texts which affirm the same thing in that salvation was never a matter of "if" it was only a matter of "when". God would come and God would save.

As we both know Sister White told a different story - She was actually there while Moses "was not". How many times do you read where Moses said "I was shown" or "God shew me"? Moses talked with God for sure but as to the fine details or "specifics" in and around these huge events it was Sister White who was actually seeing it as it happened. Imagine the power of that!

So,in answer to your question if I've read the material you have suggested I have not yet looked it over. I will read it however I'm thinking it is a methodology which helps people deal with the ultimate goal accepting "truth mutates" so what was explicit in the past isn't truth today. What I consider to be a heretical view of "present truth".

Would you agree that Sister White, in no uncertain words REBUKED the Christians at the time of 1844 for ONLY pointing to the Bible where it said "no man knows the day"?



It is most evident that there were church leaders in and around that time who had no opposition to the preaching of Christ's coming but ONLY objected to the "definite time".

What does the Bible say about that:

"And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power." Acts 1:7


"Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh" Matthew 25:13

"But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father". Mark 13:32

If that isn't enough Jesus' parables go even past that in warning about definite time YET Sister White was clear that 1844 was a test and those individuals who rebuked Scripture in favor of Sam Snow and George Storrs passed the great test while the bold ministers who were thumping the Bibe as the reason for not joining the 7th month movement and shut door FAILED the test. Given that the Sanctuary Truth would not be revealed to Sister White for over 13 years past October 1844 we should be able to be frank on exactly where the Bible stands in relation to Sister White.

There were scores of people who died of old age and other reasons between the time they accepted the 7th month movement and the initial release of the Sanctuary Truth revealed in the Day Star Extra and those people didn't have a clue about the Sanctuary or 'The Personality of God' they rejected the Bible and were SAVED! The Bible said "no man knows" and the 7th Month movement said "WE KNOW". There was no other teaching offered at that time aside from "repent, Jesus is coming on a specific date" & here is our proof He is coming!

I've often thought WOULD I have had the courage to essentially urinate on the Bible and go directly against it and join the Advent Band? I shudder to think but knowing what I now know it would be a greater sin to burn Sister White's Testimonies then it would be to burn the so called Bible. Think about it for a minute the Bible held untold masses back from joining the 7th Month movement because of what IT ( the Bible ) explicitly said about people not being able to know the time.

This should be all the demonstration needed to convince a person who holds the Adventist faith that the Bible is worthless without a true guide to draw out the salvation issues. We have just that - a real Prophet raised up to illuminate the Truths hidden away in the Bible like a 100 ton juice press - if it mattered at all Sister White, by God's power, pressed it out and those who savor the nector have a sure road map to the promised land!



Yes, "Distinctive Doctrines" such as The Sabbath, The Sanctuary Truth, The Health Message and ALL the Testimonies.



That I believe in verbal inspiration would be a gross understatement: "I was shown", "said my guide", "said my accompanying angel","when a voice said to me", "one of authority said to me". Dude!!!

We are watching the great apostasy take place right in front of our eyes with making the Testimonies of none-effect - smooth large words which help people deal with the ongoing disaster of Q.O.D. and playing footsie with people who called us a cult until we drank the wine of Babylon directly from the cup our Church ripped out of their hand!



The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox teaching from the start is that Theologically the Kingdom had come - it was started actually before Jesus was put on the cross. Ours is a unique position.



Truth NEVER mutates from a lie and vise-versa. Truth can develop and truth can be more fully understood but saying such and such happened then claiming it didn't happen is not truth. I see no problem with Scripture whereas it does agree with Sister White.



They were sealed, they had passed God's test by accepting the 7th Month movement - there was no other teaching around at that time they could accept or reject other than that. They rejected what the Bible said about definte time and accepted Storrs and Snow. Something happened and Jesus didn't come so after a time more 'tests' were added. This is how I understand "present truth".



Click this link and go to page 9, right side "man created in God's image" - it says right there that Adam LOOKED LIKE GOD in BODY. I can duplicate the same thing over and over again from the inception of the Advent publications up to about 15 years after Sister White went to sleep.

http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH19031008-V80-40__B.pdf#view=fit



"But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? Yea, I say unto you, and much more than a prophet"

and what Jesus said directly after that

"This is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee."

Sister White Prepares the way before Christ's 2nd Coming, the meaning can be nothing else.

I will start a thread about the Personality of God and how the Pioneers and Sister White understood the Sanctuary and "why" the Son came - I think you will shocked!

Hello cephalopod, here are the answers to your comments:

(By the way, I do not subscribe to the popular posturing of many of those I have discussions with of, effectively, “still seeing a forest despite all of the felled trees”. So if a comment/response I had previously made is not answered back by a countering argument, I take it that no answer could be provided, hence I made my Biblical point. So in that sense I take it that e.g., you now accept that Paul was a prophet, among others proven corrections.

Perhaps you are one of those people who think that admitting an error will wholly discredit them or weaken their other positions. I instead only see this as a sign of prideful stubborn, which does not encourage discussion from me.

I also prefer a thoughtful and documented answer, than a quick one, so do not feel that merely providing a rapid response will help convince me of the validity of your view. Just a few heads up. [I do not usually make them.])




Indeed that is the textbook definition of “having a creed”. I can only wish you good luck with this view because early SDA’s and even EGW repeatedly “mutated” their interpretations of many texts. Truth is absolute only when it has been concretely, “absolutely established.” By the way, if you are a ‘KJV only person’ then you are exegetically-speaking, according to my summary observation, working from a translation that is 35%-40% [“inaccurate”]. The translators of the NASB have done a much better job of providing more original languages faithful (= “truthful”) translation of many texts which the ca. 1600 translators of the KJV, factually just did not scholarly know to do.



That is an overgeneralizing, gross overstatement. Official Church teaching can start from Religious departments such as mainly, the SDA Theological Seminary at Andrews. I think the GC has done a most definite and decided job of “putting down” this false teaching of Theistic Evolution during the past World Church Session!

It would be interesting to hear what teachings you apparently ‘know’ to have so slyly found its way to the Official Position in the SDA Church??





I appreciate your effort, however having first read through your replies here, you just naturally do so again. Perhaps this is causally simply because the “proof” that you rely on for your views are themselves non-exegetical and thus naturally tangential and peripheral to the issues at hand. That’s just a proven/provable exegetical fact.



My point and the issue at hand is not simply that there was indeed was a possibility for Christ to fail, which indeed also explains this ‘hesitancy, doubt, perplexity, trouble and repeated pleading’ when it came time to make this redemption plan, (and that, quite significantly, only after Adam and Eve had fallen), but that (a) that plan was not thought of before and (b) the Godhead did not, as many people Theologically, unbiblically assume, know as an incontrovertible fact, from the ceaseless ages of Eternity, that Jesus would certainly triumph. Thus there should be no need for these converse emotions. Knowing what I Biblically now know about ‘God and the Future,’ that the future is not “known” but “planned” by God, I therefore see this passage for what it straightforwardly is: namely that the Fall of Adam and Eve, though always known by God as a possibility, still was not known as a certain fact. Similarly, while God the Father knew that Jesus could triumph in the only redemption plan that would work (i.e., the atoning death of God, the Lawgiver), that was never a certainty until it would come to pass. Hence this crisis when it came time to establish that plan.



To me EGW just related this vision just as God showed it to her. No “pains” or ‘extra effort’ on her part involved here. However, she never fully understood the Biblical teaching on God and the Future, as God allowed her to, in order to, as with the October 22, 1844 error, test the faith of those, and also current Adventists, to see how they would behave with a belief that ‘God certainly knows the future.’ However instead of them and those today acting in full faith under this “certainty” knowledge, they have instead acted in the utmost rebellion.



Not surprisingly, given the completely unbiblical understanding of the SOP, you shoot yourself in the foot here, because, according to your view, if the Bible was so corrupted and unreliable, then EGW for sure would have known about this. She therefore would not have been so reverentially supportive of it and its superior authority over her writings. You are, not coincidentally here, pulling a Joseph Smith, where his visions and writings are supposed to replace the “corrupted Bible”! Warning: That is the completely wrong spirit!

That SOP “Fall of man” vision should have served as a guide to SDAs in the seemingly ambivalent Theological debate on the Foreknowledge of God.



It really does not make a difference either way if that is God speaking directly or through the prophet Isaiah. As the Bible teaches that is could “declaring” in advance what He had planned to do. That is not synonymous with “knowing for a certainty what will happen in the future”. Instead it will come to pass if conditions are met, i.e., Jesus remains sinlessly faithful. In other cases God can always step in to sovereign make something happen even if conditions fail on earth with man, if He so chooses to, however in this case of the redemption of man, the sinless perfection and perseverance of Christ to the very end no matter what the obstacles (see the gruelling episode in the Garden of Gethsemane, also as related in DA), this was an all or nothing shot. Hence the great hesitancy to agree with this plan back in heaven at the fall of man. No only would man be lost eternally, but so would God the Son!



Come on do you really think/believe that “before” in (actually) Luke 2:31 has a temporal meaning here. The Greek word is prosopon (Strong’s #4383) which literally means “the face/eyes”. So the Greek phrase kata prosopon is rightly translated as “in the presence of” (cf. NASB, NRSV, also NIV “sight”). Even the KJV/NKJV are colloquially not in error here. It is your forced temporal meaning that is. So absolutely no notion of “before the creation of the world” but just that ‘Simeon had seen the promised salvation of God which He had now, finally made manifest in the presence of all of the peoples then living in the world.’



I would like to see your top 10 here. The salvation of man is spoken as a certain, most probable plan, but not a definitely foreknown result. The possibility of it failing was always most genuinely there. There was no play acting involved in this at all on the Father’s or Jesus’s sides.



Having a vision of a past event is not “being there”. As EGW says:

Moses Wrote Book of Job.–“The long years amid desert solitudes were not lost. Not only was Moses gaining a preparation for the great work before him, but during this time, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he wrote the book of Genesis and also the book of Job, which would be read with the deepest interest by the people of God until the close of time (ST Feb. 19, 1880). {3BC 1140.3} Cf. PP 251.1)

In regards to “seeing” future events, both Moses (on Mount Nebo) and EGW had such vision. However, given the Theological truth on “God Foreplanning the Future,’ both were actually only shown most vivid representational views and not the actual future. This is clearly seen in the related visions of EGW where in many instances, things and people that she definitely saw, did not take place. Thus they only were possibilities, i.e., what could happen (if faithful) and not a definite view of a future event.

So Moses received the same type of past and future visions as EGW did and you do not find those “I was shown type of statements, as this was a given with him.” He did not feel a need to so “justify” his revelations, especially in those days were this was readily acceptable, particularly with Israel, whereas EGW living in the skeptical days of the 1800 A.D. had to do so. EGW`s visions, for pointedly here, the early Patriarchs and Prophets material, merely complimented the ones that Moses had had.

Also the fact that EGW only uses those “I was shown” type of statements sparingly shows that not everything she wrote came directly through a vision, revelation or impression from God and/or the Holy Spirit. In fact her early writings such as Spiritual Gifts, Spirit of Prophecy contain many of these “I was shown” statements, which do not later appear in her “finalized” productions of these works in e.g., the Conflict of the Ages series, shows that only in certain instances were her statements, mainly extra-biblical ones, supernaturally, directly revealed and not everything that she wrote around such revelations while composing her full books.

So self-evident this attempt to now make EGW greater than Moses is also completely unbiblical and also outrightly heretical.



Thompson’s examples just shows that EGW views also changed as her scholarly and/or revelation understanding advanced. Her truth improved as she came to, even scholarly and theologically, know more. It actually does not involve the notion of present truth, but more starkly, prior inaccurate understandings.



The problem here, that EGW rebukes as hypocrisy was that these ministers were ‘throwing the baby out with the bath water’ because they used the Bible caution against claiming to know the “day and hour” to also ignore the signs of the time and also the evidence for the year from their interpretation of the 2300 days. So really, these just did not want Jesus to come, and were making dismissively all-inclusive excuses here.



God was looking at the hearts here and saw the base reasons for rejecting this message. So it really was not whether or not preaching definite time was right or wrong. More than anything else we are all judged/held responsible for what we know to be true and how we are faithful to this known truth not necessarily on whether or not it is actually a full/accurate truth. E.g, the unreached pagan who know that certain things are right while others are not.



EGW had a vision showing that there was a temple/sanctuary in heaven as early as ca. Jan 1845 (WLF 12.8) and April 3, 1847 (EW 32ff). That understanding had already been directly revealed by God to Hiram Edson the morning after Oct 22, 1844. (See Loughborough’s account, p.193)

Also, according to Edson’s account, that Sanctuary Truth was divinely revealed to him by God. So here this truth, which indeed is concretely found in the Bible, came to Adventist Believers directly via divine revelation.



No one who “rejects the Bible” will be saved. These “may be saved” since you do not know this as a fact, because they past the test based on their faithfulness to what they believed was true and Biblically acceptable. Conversely speaking, EGW indicated that God showed her that William Miller will be saved however he rejected the 7-month movement, but not the more important belief that Christ would return, and in faith set his life in order for that belief, whereas others basely preferred to continue to hang out with the scoffers. Hence the reason for their failure.



Whatever.... In your false understanding that the SOP is Superior to the Bible you are only a victim of your own Theological misunderstandings and exegetical fallacies. If you would not have wanted Jesus to come back in 1844, you, like these other ones, would have chosen to ignore the year seemingly clearly given in the 2300 day prophecy, in order to wholly reject this movement. This was not an all or nothing issue here, but a matter of genuine faith and personal desire to see Christ return.



More belief fallacies and assumptions based upon your incorrect Theological/Exegetical foundation. The converse is the truth, if the SOP does not agree with the Bible then it is worthless. God only uses the SOP to lead believers back to the truth already contained in the Bible. That was all a gift of God for a generation that were for the most part not Biblical scholars. Today this work can easily be done through the SDA seminaries, if they actually properly engaged in this great task. Nonetheless the SOP will always be available to help confirm/guide these Bible studies and not to replace or oppose them.



-The Sanctuary Truth came from God to Edson; So that leaves e.g, 26 out of 28 fundamental beliefs. The Testimonies are not fundamental doctrines but practical counsels in regards to Christian living. As such they can all be included under the fundamental belief on Sanctification and/or the Newest FB on Christian Growth.



Seriously, though no offense was taken, don’t “Dude” me. It does not affect/influence anything in this issue, especially as you are the one who is out in left field on this matter, no matter how stubbornly you want to believe this. You need to thorough study out this topic of prophetic inspiration and correct your “creed”. Your view has not Biblical, nor SOP support, but, indeed like a creed, is just what you want to believe about the SOP. Sure it makes Bible study and Prophetic Interpretation much easier instead of engaging in exegetical studies, but that is not to be the Final Authority for an SDA Believer.

Also the fact that EGW makes “I was shown statement” instead of working from a default basis that ‘she was shown everything she wrote’ is incontrovertible proof from the SOP itself against such a verbal inspiration belief. Even the things that EGW was “shown/told” only qualified as “verbal inspiration” when she recorded them word-for-word as she was “told them”. In fact, in regards to things that were merely “shown” to her, many times she says that ‘words fail me to relate what she had seen’. What happened to “verbal” inspiration there?? You are improperly overgeneralizing a corpus-wide, comparatively few “direct revelations” to mean every single word that EGW penned. Have you ever looked at the manuscript of her published works or letters?? They contain many editorial corrections both by her and or her assistants, which she approved. What happened to “verbal inspiration” here, especially when she turned over these manuscripts to these secretarial assistants to “improve” then as the need is??!



The greatest harm and apostasy will occur when the writings of EGW are thus misused and no longer lead to the Greater Light, but replace it. We are not going to convince the world by preaching the writings of EGW, but accurately teaching what the Bible says and through the contribution of the SOP God has greatly facilitated this task. However, as EGW said, it will be the Bible that will be the final authority and judge of everything.



Well the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church was completely wrong, as easily disproven by many statements of Jesus as he later fully understood that God would not be able to establish the Kingdom of God with that unfaithful generation of Israel. If by ‘our unique position’ your are meaning, a post-cross Kingdom only after the Second Coming, then that certainly still does not resolve the clear issue in Matt 10:23 that Jesus had expected the Kingdom to be established before these sent out disciples returned from their missionary efforts. Again here, stick to the actually issue at hand instead of here irrelevantly veering off!



That was not at all what I said. The unfaithfulness of Israel does not make truth a lie. The fault is with the people and not the word of God. It however forces a postponement and by necessity spiritualized fulfillment of a previous truth that was initially intended to have be literal fulfilled.



Again that is the converse of what EGW recommended. She is the one to be judged by the light of Bible.



Nothing “unforeseen” happened, God was just never intending to effectuate the Second Coming on October 22, 1844. The Millerites interpretation of Dan 8:14 was at fault here. God instead used this as a test to have a most faithful group of Believers with which to work with after the passing of that time to restore many other Biblical truths in this newly form, Apostolic Remnant Church. So while these faithful Millerites may have been sealed with the Holy Spirit, that did not include such truths as the Sabbath, State of the Dead, Sanctuary, etc, simply because they then did not know of them.



No “rejection” actually took place here, they simply continued in faith based upon the wider truth of the year 1844 revealed by the chronology of 1844. Also God had not other option but to work with the Dan 8:14 understanding error of William Miller, as he fully expected given the way He foresaw that Satan would use the Catholic Church to completely obscure the Heavenly Ministry of Christ.




No wonder why I could not find it on my EGW Complete Writing CD-ROM... Contrary to what you stated, EGW did not says this as it was S.N. Haskell who wrote this “Personality of God Article in the Review and Herald!!

Most seriously stated, though Adventist Pioneers were well-intentioned, their works are not a final authority and does contain many various Biblical deficient understanding errors. T This further highlights the need of the Prophetic gift amongst them to keep them on track, though many times, they ignored the advice of EGW and published their own views. Indeed that was a major source of conflict between EGW and various Church leaders who preferred to follow their own course. So just because an article of an SDA Pioneer appears in the Review next to an EGW article, it does not mean that she endorsed it. In fact she may never have seen that submission before it was published in the paper.

I have looked up the phrase “Personality of God” in her writings and it seems clear to me that she had a less literal understanding of this than e.g., S.N. Haskell. She seems to understand this as we also colloquially do today, as God’s Character, whereas Haskell and others wanted to have a more literal/bodily (i.e., hand, eyes, ears, etc) view of this. So I rather side with EGW’s understanding here. Notwithstanding, I still could see that a “bodily personality” could be strictly referring to Jesus/Michael God the Son, who apparently is the only member of the Godhead to have a physical, bodily form.




Preparing the way for Christ’s Advent is indeed the ultimate task that any prophet could be given, however that only makes them more than a prophet, because of the on the ground, reform work that this commission entails as seen in the work and ministry of both John and EGW. However that does not mean a superior prophet than others but only a prophet who also had another and great task in addition to being a prophet.



Frankly speaking, if your thus far manifested trend continues, only in its factual lack of exegetical soundness. which by then would not be a shock. Proper exegesis will result in the taking into full account and consideration all points on an issue, rather than selectively considering and presenting only those that are favorable to your view. So if you really want to shock me then do this!

NJK, I'll answer your post in the order I feel has the best chance of helping you see where I'm coming from. As per your request I will take more time in my answers.



"In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, "PROMISED" before the world began". Titus 1:2
That's #1 - and it states God promised eternal life before the world began.

"And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" Rev 13:8
That's #2 - The Lamb slain is Christ because He was ALWAYS the Christ - See #1.

"The just LORD is in the midst thereof; he will not do iniquity: every morning doth he bring his judgment to light, he faileth not; but the unjust knoweth no shame". Zeph 3:5
that's #3 - God does not "fail" in His "purposes".

"Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompence; he will come and save you". Isa 35:4That's point #4 - which says the same thing as #3.

"Who verily was foreordained "before" the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you". 1 Peter 1:20
That's #5 - which says the same thing #1 & #2

"And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins". Matt 1:21
That's #6 - Which repeats #1 through #5, "he SHALL save"

"Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people". Luke 2:29
That's #7 - Simeon was told by the Holy Ghost he would not die until he witnessed "THE" Christ - Simeon said he had seen THE CHRIST and it was Baby Jesus.

The word "Christ" itself means: Victor, Healer, annointed one, deliverer.

"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever" Hebrews 13:8
That's #8 - if Jesus is God - God does not fail and He certainly does not participate in "iniquity". See #3.

"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death". James 1:13
That's #9 - A man is ONLY tempted when the lust within him draws him toward the sin being offered, PERIOD.

Examples:

"Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof". Romans 6:12

If you are NOT into beastiality then someone who tempts you to engage in beastiality can be said to have "tempted you" YET at the same time you, within yourself were NOT TEMPTED because that particular sin was NOT a part of YOUR "lust" - A MAN IS ONLY TEMPTED WHEN HE IS DRAWN AWAY OF "HIS OWN LUST" - then when that "lust" ( described as baby in the womb ) comes out i.e. CONCEIVES it brings forth the internal sin and when it's completed it brings death. This is why Jesus said to look at a woman with lust was the same thing as SIN.

"For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man". Mark 7:21

If a person has ANY of those things within his or her heart and is "tempted" to participate in sin they will deny themself the pleasure of sin and resist the temptation that is pulling them toward "their own lust" OR they will simply COMPLETE THEIR OWN INTERNAL SIN so that it gives birth.

The following is HOW you, I and everyone else walking around today were born.

"Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me". Psalm 51:5

"Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one". Job 14:4

The above is a huge difference from what the Bible said about Jesus, no?

"And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God". Luke 1:35

This brings us to point #10 & I would urge you to pay close attention to it.

"Jesus said unto her, I AM THE RESSURRECTION, AND THE LIFE: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?" John 11:25

Jesus said prior to his death that he WAS THE RESURRECTION and THE LIFE...
...The Sister of Lazarus said Jesus was "THE CHRIST.
...Siemon who held the baby Jesus said Jesus was THE CHRIST.
...The Bible says many times that Jesus was ALWAYS the Christ before the world was created.
...The Bible says God would come and SAVE His people.

Like I said it was only a matter of WHEN God's Christ would come....
...It was NEVER & I mean never a matter of IF Christ could "pull it off".

Do me a favor NJK, read the above over so it's fresh in your mind then watch as Sister White reveals the truth about the above tampered with Scriptures.








http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/ST/ST19330124-V60-04__C/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=5




http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/STAUS/STAUS19050911-V20-37__B.pdf#search=%22 god risked %22&view=fit

You caught that right? God "RISKED EVERYTHING" & "Had CHRIST failed in the obedience that the holy law of heaven demanded". And you thought I was just messing around and not really looking into these matters.



If you would like to see more I have a whole slew of them. I honestly think I've found most of them but will continue to look. I would very much appreciate your "exegesis" on the Bible verses I've offered and how they could be incorporated into what Light Sister White has given to us in this area.

The Bible seems very explicit that Christ was the Christ LONG prior to the Incarnation and given what the name Christ means it seems outlandish to suggest that Christ could have sinned and fallen when it was Christ himself ( prior to his death on the Cross ) who said of himself "I AM THE RESURRECTION AND I AM THE LIFE".

Now, you don't think the Bible has been tampered with at all when it says the Holy Spirit told a man who held Jesus as a Baby that he was in reality "LOOKING AT SALVATION ITSELF" when God's final Prophet, Sister White tells you in black and white that "Christ" could have sinned and fallen and the Pioneers in keeping with Sister White generated statements over and over again, such as God "RISKED" everything and had "Christ" failed God would have had to forfit the worlds to Lucifer for his plunder!



The KJV is essentially the DR Bible. I have nearly every version and I use them all. I'm NOT by any means KJV only. I've taken care to get as original EGW Testimonies as I can afford. My GC has Jesus with wings on the cover. The new EGW writings have been edited and altered greatly. Satan was working against Michael in the SDA Church as he always has worked against God's people so I only accept the truth that has "developed" and rightly reject mutations where a teaching is later said to be a mistake subjequent to the death of God's holy Prohet.



We will see about that, we will also see how they treat the Prophet in the near future but I'll not hold my breath on that.



You've missed my whole point - and that is the Bible is only good whereas it agrees with Sister White. In the case of God "risking everything" with "Christ" and the Bible saying Christ was salvation itself prior to Jesus' death what are you going to go with here? The Bible or Sister White's infallable interpretation of the Bible - I don't know about you but as for me and my house we will follow the Lord.

Perhaps you could tell me just 'when' it was that Jesus became "The Christ"? From my only two years of education past high school it appears to me that the Bible makes the claim that the pre-Incarnate Word was ALWAYS the Christ yet that can't be because ONLY the REAL Christ could save and Sister White has told us in so uncertain terms that Christ could have sinned and fallen and had he done so the wrath of God would have been brought to bear against him. So, when, in your understanding did Sister White accept Jesus finally ( in the ultimate sense ) became the Christ, for certainly he logically couldn't be the Christ before he actually was.

was it when he died on the cross? I'm not trying to be a jerk about this but I want to know and I have looked all over for this answer.



You need to go back and read Verse 25...
...And the text says before "ALL" people.
...As in the following.









Are you starting to get what I'm getting at NJK? What 'Christ' other than the REAL Lord's Christ would Simeon have declared to be God's salvation if Simeon was REALLY under the direction of the Holy Ghost? The Bible just said God's holy Ghost told this guy he wouldn't die UNTIL he saw 'The Lord's CHRIST'

Sister White was explicit that had Christ not vindicated God's holy Law the stone would NEVER have been rolled away. Simeon said he witnessed God's salvation and Jesus had not even started to talk yet! Sister White says NO,NO,NO game NOT over yet! seriously NJK, would the Lord's Christ be anything or anyone OTHER then the REAL CHRIST. I think even you would agree that a Christ which didn't make the grade would be generally understood to be a FALSE CHRIST.



"Emmanuel which is interpreted GOD with us" which would logically bring up the question of how it could be that 'GOD' continued to exist ONLY because He met the conditions? What you just suggested is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE within the doctrine of the Trinity because Trinitarianism maintains that God is IMPECCABLE. It looks as if you might have just discovered what the Pioneers and Sister White have always said, i.e. Christ was NOT God in the ultimate sense.



Exactly what I've been saying, Moses was inspired in a LESSOR way then Sister White. Did Moses see the heavenly Jerusalem and take a tour of the Planets and universe? Did Moses get to talk to Aliens from other worlds and get to have a sit down with Enoch? Did Moses get to see the angel who led him through the desert get Vested with authority by the Self existent one and only Eternal God? Moses longed to see God's Christ and only got to see him on the other side of the grave when Michael Resurrected him.

I realize that Moses did some amazing things with the red sea and also realize the Bible says there was no greater prophet before or after - again NJK, did Moses get to fly with angels from planet to planet and speak to unfallen worlds? Sister White did all that and more. We seriously need to stop kidding ourselfs as to what kind power God vested in Sister White. This is far from childs play.



I was afraid you were going to say something like that. Oh my word - you are not attacking Sister White in reality you are attacking the Self Existent One - the one who sent Sister White, the hand inside the puppet.

I'm come back at a later time as I need to go cool off. I hope you will come to see that God's power came into Sister White and there are no errors within her. I'm sitting here with my mouth hanging open reading what you just said.

God Bless.

Hello cephalopod, I have read through your post and had planned to answer it but after having no more clearly seen your “exegetical” methodology, theology, Christology, etc, along with other view, I just cannot invest more of my time and effort in such a discussion. Your views are completely haywire. You seem to just spout things off without even listening to yourself because you repeatedly contradict yourself. Also I think I greatly understated the my previous perception that you are involved in some sort of EGW cult. If you really want to know the truth with your statements then invest more time in doing the real exegetical work. Nonetheless I will give you the following sound bite answers to some of your points.

-Your 10 verses need to be exegetically studied in order to accurately understand them. They do not contradict EGW. In fact if you have a scriptural index look up what EGW says on each of these verses. You be shocked how she fully supports them.

-Possibility is an integral part of “planning” so no contradiction between what the Bible really teaches and EGW.

-Read e.g., DA 51-58 and see how many times EGW refers to Jesus as Christ during this Dedication. In fact do this search for all of DA, nay all of her writings, even those covering the OT. To her Jesus was always “The Christ”.

-If EGW knowingly was correcting the Bible, then why did she consistently quote it verbatim. There are some examples where when she had more accurate light, she altered the reading of the Bible version she was using, as with John 20:16 (see this post). So when she didn’t that means she fully agreed with the Scriptures as it read and also had no further light on it, as advanced exegesis has since provided more accurate translations for most of these texts she quoted in her works.

-Don’t expect the SDA Church to make a cult of EGW, like you have because she told them not to.

-There is not a problem with the word “all” in Luke 2:31 but with your forced temporal understanding of “before”!

-Did EGW spend 40+ days in the immediate, physical presence of God??
-Did God speak to EGW mouth to mouth (vs. dreams or visions)??
-Did God appear to EGW in various physical manifestations??
-Was EGW resurrected from the dead??
-Was EGW ascended to Heaven??
-Did EGW meet with Jesus Christ in Person??
-Do you have any idea what Moses has been doing for the past 3500+ years in the Heavenly Realms, how many Galaxies and Unfallen Worlds He has visited??
-Etc, etc.

-What God in part did through EGW through dreams and vision, He physically and in person did with Moses, ergo, Moses is much greater than EGW!! You’ll have to correct your creed.

-Reading EGW’s own self-correcting statements and changing theological understandings in Thompson’s will be preventively good for, manifestly, your mental, physical and also Spiritual health!!

Although I do not view this whole thing as a “who is the greatest” competition, do read Numbers 12:6-8 to see how much Greater Moses was in His experience with God than EGW! As God asks in this dealing with someone who wanted to be considered as ‘just as great as Moses’ (vs. 2), let alone “greater” as you baselessly are endeavoring for EGW: “Why then were you not afraid To speak against My servant, against Moses?" (vs. 8)”

Then it should be easy for you to exegetically show how the 10 verse I offered demonstrate what Sister White so clearly does - we both know they don't.



I have and what I've been telling you is that the Bible claims in no uncertain terms that the 'real Christ' OF God has always been the Christ - you do realize that Christ is a "title" with specific meaning, right? Well, then be so kind as to demonstrate how the view of Sister White ( that God's "Christ" could have fallen and had he God's wrath would have annihilated "Christ" with the view which is now found in the Bible which is much different. You've obviously done all this work already so why not share it with me - according to you I'm haywire and involved in an Ellen G. White cult of sorts.



Why did the anti Trinitarian Pioneers of the Seventh-day Adventist Church say Christ was the 'eternal son' & also say 'Jesus was the fullness of the godead bodily' & also say 'in Jesus was life eternal'? You claim that Bible teaches these things and so did the Pioneers of our Faith however the Pioneers interpreted those texts to mean something vasting different then the Church does today - that's not development of doctrine it's absolute mutation of doctrine and I'm fairly sure you know this.



Sister White said if we reject her testimonies we reject the one who sent her - that's pretty blunt. Sister White CONFIRMED aka determined true or false those doctrines which were brought in by the Pioneers - we have a record of what the Pioneers brought in - it's there for anyone to read.



Are you sure you want the Bible to interpret itself NJK?

"she declared unto him before all the people for what cause she had touched him" Luke 8:47

"And he is before all things, and by him all things consist" Col 1:17

I could go on and on with this - the text says salvation was prepared before the face of ALL people which sounds identical in meaning to "the lamb slain from the foundation of the world" and identical to "he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world". Show me your exegesis Sir.







How long did Sister White continue to live after her initial vision? Count the years and tally over 2000 visions directly from God - Moses or any other prophet can't even can't even hold a candle to that. There must have been a reason God gave Sister White hundreds of times the visions He gave anyone else - I have meditated on these things and the spirit has spoken.




Does it really matter if we accept the communication was DIRECTY caused by the Self Existent One? "I would be taken off in vision". "WHO" took Sister White off in vision?



Yes, the manifestations were themselves 'manifestations of God'

Daniel was guided through his vision by a “certain man, clothed in linen” (vs. 5, 6). Ellen spoke of her “guide,” and “the angel” or “angel messenger” or “young man,” who led her through her visions.

Daniel was “left alone” (vs. 8), unaware of his surroundings, in a trance-like state. Ellen was “utterly unconscious of everything transpiring around her.”

Daniel was first weak, but then strengthened to stand (vs. 8, 11, 18). Ellen would often lose her strength temporarily and sit, but then later stand.

Daniel said, “neither is there breath left in me” (vs. 17). Ellen did not breathe while in visions, which lasted up to three hours!



No.



Jesus winged his way to heaven holding Sister White by the hand - she witnessed the tree of life. In your view did this require a bodily visist to be valid?








Neither of us have any idea about Moses has been doing but that's really not the point. How many visions did Moses have prior to his death?




Right! Moses was slopping down flesh meats, drinking wine and a whole host of other things he didn't have the true light on and I mean no insult to Moses here when I say the light Sister White brought to the people of God corrected the world as to what Moses should have said.

Exactly according to the stipulations of Pro. 26:4, 5 I will deservingly answer your statements (I’ll just omit the haywire parts - you can take the time and efforts to first rebundle and secure those points on your own) :

-Knowing all that is exegtically required and involved in transparently showing the precise meaning of these verse, I optionally choose not to invest more time than I already had in doing this. I instead forcus this work and effort on the writings involving my other exegetical studies. Does it really matter to you since you believe the Bible is irreparably corrupt. I.e., How can whatever I say from a corrupt book/manuscript ever be conclusively proven to be true/genuine. So live with your creedal tenet!

-Ellen White also counseled to reject her writings/testimonies if it is shown that the Bible teaches otherwise. But of course, you, also living ca. 100 years after EGW, know more about herself, her ministry and her writings than she does.

-I most certainly want to Bible to interpret itself. That is known as exegesis which you actually also do when expedient.

-ignoring your conflated understanding of “before” (temporally) and “before the presence of’ (spatially); -where is the word “before” (Greek “pro”) in the “lamb slain from the foundation of the world” i.e., either the Greek text or the English Translation. Proper exegesis places the original text above the translation.

-EGW needed to see 2000 because she saw in vision what, in major parts, Moses lived through. Also since Moses lived in the Egyptian palaced since he was weaned at 2 or 3, no doubt since then engrossed in Egyptian education and culture in addition to the special education and training to possibly be the next Pharaoh, he was not instructed in the oral stories of God since Creation, if that was actually still done among the now 400-year enslaved Israelites. And if he was, in his young age, it at best as some Uncle Arthur type of stories. So he probably God all of the books of Job and Genesis solely and entirely through visions, and probably for the most part of these 40 wilderness years. I believe it was just like with EGW.

-When God speak directly to you mouth to mouth, thus while you are fully awake, you (1) do not need to be induced into sleep or a trance, to have a dream or vision. So Moses’ superior experience cannot be compared to EGW lessor one.

-EGW got all of these visions and dreams, which mostly dealt with past Biblical and Church History, and very little with the Future, not because she was superior to any other prophet, but because, given her lief time period of the 1800 A.D. she had more History to be made aware of. Number of visions does not mean superiority and this is not a competition.

Visions and dreams vs. the real life and mouth to mouth experience do not compare. It’s like being at the General Conference Session or watching it on TV or the Internet. God is clear as to what is the superior experience in Num 12:6-8.

Visions are not the physical reality of going to heaven in person to stay with God. Moses was also instructed to build the Sanctuary according to what He had then seen and probably visited while in Heaven.

According to God in Num 12:6-8 Daniel prophetic experience, which was indeed comparable to EGW, was inferior to what Moses experienced. Furthermore unlike EGW and Daniel, I do not recall Moses saying he was confused about what God had “straightforwardly” told him. (Num 12:7)

A reliable SDA source, David Asscherick by name, stated in a sermon that in DA, EGW said that God sent Michael to resurrect Moses shortly after His death because He suddenly missed Moses. Obviously God did not so “miss” EGW.

All of EGW experiences were non-physical, I.e. no matter how enrapturing the revelations were, she did not get an inch off the ground. There’s nothing not to get here, unless you just can’t allow yourself to get it.
-Moses 3500+ year experience is indeed the point since you wanted to claim that seeing planets in a vision made EGW superior to Moses. God raised Moses so he can also have such experiences in person and real life.

-Quality is more significant than quantity. Would you prefer to have 100 conventional cruise missile in your arsenal or one suit nuke. In a similar way, God’s unknown direct revelations to Moses, probably to frequent to be limited to the time of sleep or visions, singelhandedly established God’s Israel through eternal principles as seen in the Book of Genesis-Deutoronomy. EGW literally had to do, for the most part, a work of getting up to speed on what Moses had said and experienced.

-EGW ate meat for a long time after she became a prophet (i.e., as late as 1896), even after her 1863 health reform vision, and that even unclean meats. Look it up, e.g., through the internet which will lead you to her own statements!

-What “whole host of other (unbiblical) things did Moses knowingly do???

-Where do you think EGW got her dietary reform principles, e.g., clean vs. unclean meats???

Again I have repugnantly engaged in this work of prophetic comparison solely to dispute your EGW Cultism and not because I think it is worthwhile nor important.

By your selective responses here and thus knowing omissions, I see you have nothing to say for these other questions/comments. E.g., Have you ever seen the amount of post typing editing and correction in an EGW manuscript. Someone was verbally-deficient, if not in error, in the past!!

And don’t be fooled by the relative length of this response, it is many time much less taxing and time-consuming to me to make such non-deep and off the cuff responses than exegetical ones. Your obliviously stubborn, unbiblical and contra-SOP stance, to say the least here, is not worth such a “costly” investment from me. As right as you obviously are convinced you are, you sound more and more unreal to me with your increasingly wild, spurious bombastic statements!

So in case you are sincerely honest cephalopod:

EGW herself categorically refutes the claim that she was verbally inspired (1 SM 24-26) For more see George Knight, Reading Ellen White pp. 104-112 (Ch. 17).

As with the trinity her statement in that area was not meant to be taken in the ultimate sense of the word.



Sister White and Christ were ONE like the Father and Christ were ONE. To reject Sister White is the same thing as rejecting the Lord.

Cephalopod, I think the weight of evidence speaks for itself here. When EGW was questioned point blankly about the degree of her inspiration, she made it clear that it certainly was not verbal. I go by her words vs. your “creedal” and quasi-fanatical post-fact assumptions.

Just a Jesus clearly made this Oneness statement Himself in John 10:30; 17:21; I’ll need to see a similar explicit statement from EGW herself instead of, again here, going by your “creedal” and quasi-fanatical, post-fact assumptions.

Seems clear to me that, on this fundamental issue, you’ve chosen to go down the “dishonest” path...