You're arguing the example, not the question.

As I see it, it is only by ascertaining the concrete truth from pertinent examples that this particular question can ever be substantively addressed and answered/resolved. Otherwise it would merely be stating one’s (private) opinions about EGW’s SOP gift.

Who do you see as the Sons of God in Job?

It is ALL "(private) opinion."

To restate the subject of this thread:
Subject: Re: Are Ellen White's writings the final authority on prophetic, doctrinal, or historical interpretation

Regarding prophecy, may I suggest "England will join the (Civil) war, which was clearly not correct.

Regarding doctine, may I suggest the "Shut Door" theology, (which she supported) but was clearly wrong.

Regarding historical interpretation, may I suggest her belief that Paul wrote Hebrews, to which theory NO Biblical scholars (including SDA) any longer adhere.


This is not to be taken as "disbelief" in EGW, or whether or not she is a "true prophet." But rather it addresses the question of whether or not her writings are the final authority for SDA interpretation.

I found this statement ONCE, in RH, September 10, 1901 par. 5, and it was not worded in a way to imply the same understanding as I get from reading your post. Interestingly enough it followed this statement, condeming photographs:

As I visited the homes of our people and our schools, I see that all the available space on tables, what-nots, and mantelpieces is filled up with photographs. On the right hand and on the left are seen the pictures of human faces. God desires this order of things to be changed. Were Christ on earth, He would say, "Take these things hence." I have been instructed that these pictures are as so many idols, taking up the time and thought which should be sacredly devoted to God. {RH, September 10, 1901 par. 2}
These photographs cost money. Is it consistent for us, knowing the work that is to be done at this time, to spend God's money in producing pictures of our own faces and the faces of our friends? Should not every dollar that we can spare be used in the upbuilding of the cause of God? These pictures take money that should be sacredly devoted to God's service; and they divert the mind from the truths of God's word. {RH, September 10, 1901 par. 3}
This making and exchanging photographs is a species of idolatry. Satan is doing all he can to eclipse heaven from our view. Let us not help him by making picture-idols. We need to reach a higher standard than these human faces suggest. The Lord says, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Those who claim to believe in Christ need to realize that they are to reflect His image. It is His likeness that is to be kept before the mind. The words that are spoken are to be freighted with heavenly inspiration. {RH, September 10, 1901 par. 4}

How many of us ban photography with the same vigor we object to "competitive sport"?

Here's what she was shown:


Why do you think she was shown "England will join the (Civil) war"?


Please post a quote where she said "I was shown" or "I saw", etc, as it relates to the Shut Door.


Please post a quote where she said "I was shown" or "I saw", etc, as it relates to who wrote the book of Hebrews.


Whenever she prefaced something with "I was shown", or "I saw", or something to this effect, we can be absolutely certain it represents the word of God. Otherwise, she did not possess the gift of the spirit of prophecy.

I agree with Ellen concerning who the "sons of God" in Job are. She wrote:


The "sons of God" in Job = holy angels. Do you agree?

I thought that my statement would be glibly understood. What I meant in including (private) vs. mere opinion is, as you yourself have done, you have cited examples as to wy you think the SOP is to be subject to the Bible as a final arbritrator. So saying things merely along the lines of, e.g., ‘I do not think so’ or the converse, to this discussion question would be stating a private opinion, i.e., one that is not based/supported by concrete examples.

To succinctly address your cited examples:

-Civil War: As shown by Mountain Man, the statements about England were conditional, as in dependent on what the circumstances could/should have been.

-Shut Door: As I mention in this post on the Shut Door, (see also in this MSDAOL thread) EGW and other SDA Pioneers were not wrong that there had been a shut door, but that it had been shut to everyone. As it was inferentially subsequently shown to her, it was only “shut” to those who had had ample opportunity to understand the testing truths at issue then. As I further understand it, involving the Biblical view of ”God and the Future”, this was all because God could have, and wanted to, effectuate the Second Coming around that time, had dependent conditions on the earth surrounding these Adventists had been fully/adequately met. I also, out of this view, understand that God did not directly tell these Adventist & EGW that they had been wrong, not only because they actually potentially were not, but also because that telling them these details would have adversely changed their understanding of God and the Future, a passable “known future” view which God wanted to maintain so as to build up/strengthen/sustain their faith and thus soon effectuate the Second Coming, as it indeed could be done by God if all was finished then.

-Paul’s Authorship of Hebrew:
To succinctly summarize my study on this topic of the authorship of Hebrew. I believe, as Church fathers did, that the Epistle was originally written in Hebrew by Paul for his fellow Hebrew countrymen, even Jewish Believers probably under the inspiration from God that Jerusalem and the Temple would soon, literally pass away. The epistle was therefore circulated amongs Jewish people and was only later, probably after 70 A.D., translated into Greek by someone other than Paul (resembling the Hebrew OT vs. the LXX, especially in style). That is also why it does not have the traditional greetings and even ending of Paul Letters, since these would not have been pertinent to these Gentile Believers. So only the body was translated and circulated. This would also show how strictly it was transmitted as a Pauline salutation was not added. It was probably only orally stated that the Letter was from Paul. (That translating person also deliberately remained in the shadows so as to not discredit the epistle, preferring it to only be said that it was Paul’s work.) Really, only someone with the authority of Paul could make such theological statements. Perhaps Paul was even put to death before he could take on this task of the Greek Translation himself.

Quite succinctly summarized here, the expression “son(s)(/daughter(s)) of God in the Bible involves more than angels, but any created being that comes to life their lives according to the will of God “their Father”. Many Biblical examples show this (e.g., Matt 5:9; Luke 20:36; Rom 8:14,19; Gal 3:26) It thus also could, and does, include, thus righteous, men and women on earth. So it is not limited to angels, but to any created being.

I just noticed this question of yours Mountain Man.
-These contradictions are indeed rare and my example of the chronological location of Ascension vision is one of them.
-I can also cite the ones mentioned by Alden Thompson in the book Inspiration p. 290-295, which she however, later corrected herself.
-Her implied understanding that, e.g., oysters were not unclean food until post 1896 is another applicable example.
-Most of what could be cited as contradictions, are actually merely incomplete understandings.