God's knowledge of the future includes the part He played. But such knowledge does not alter what He does as things play out. Knowing the outcome does not lessen the emotional stress.

Let’s exegetically see!



As I see it EGW bases that entire view and exposition on Rom 16:25, and manifestly not on any direct revelation, I have examined that verse and found that the word “eternal” in the R.V. is a mistranslation. The Greek word is chronos which means: “a period of time.” The word translated “eternal” is the Greek “aionios” and is in the plural form. However, as SDA know, as the same plural form of that word occurs in e.g., Jon 2:6 where Jonah says: “The earth with its bars was around me forever” when it was only 3 days, shows that it does not necessarily have to mean “eternity” or “eternal ages”

So indeed, that “period of time” does not have to be “eternity”, but it can, and indeed is, as I understand it, the different periods of time in the Old Testament when God, through the implementation of the Plan of Salvation with the Sacrifices of Lambs and other Animals, was typify the Gospel. That was all made more concrete during the period of time of the Covenant with Israel.

As also part of typical Gospels of Christ, Paul Gospel included the free admittance of Gentiles into God’s Israel, which Christ had revealed to him (e.g., Acts 9:15), and which Christ had also slightly hinted at during His ministry until the full time for its implementation came (cf. Acts 1:8) and in the OT, though repeatedly also hinted at (e.g., Isa 56:6) and could be done under strict probationary limitations (i.e., the joining of Gentiles to Israel), was for the most part a “hidden/veiled truth” (= “mystery”).

Paul’s Gospel also included the complete non-observance, or in some parts, optional observance of OT ceremonial law and feasts. This was a source of sharp conflict with Him and even Jewish Christians. Indeed I do not see that early Jewish Christians ceased from observing feasts such as Passover.

So it was to all of these Gospel truths that had been veiled/hidden during various times periods in the past, even before the time of the Old Covenant with Israel, that constituted Paul’s ‘(various) ancient time periods’. So it was not the to an ‘eternal past times, and that solely for the establishment of the Plan of Salvation’ as EGW assumed/understood, and went on to make her additional claims.

Also, as it was shown earlier, EGW has the wrong (‘so much”) understanding of the “so in John 3:16 vs. the exgetically actual: ‘in like manner’, i.e., ‘just as a Serpent had been raised in the desert.’ (John 3:14, 15)



The bold quote above is from Acts 15:18 KJV/NKJV. However only these tow version have that statement. So it may be a manuscript addition. At best it is saying “from long ago” which does not necessarily mean “eternity.” That Acts 15;17 passage is quoting Isa 45:21 which is not saying ‘from eternity’, nor ‘from the beginning’ or ‘before the beginning of the world.’

Also EGW wrongly reads Isa 46:9 as “knows” vs. the actual word “declare”.

As she uses these to make her “therefore” conclusion, it can transparently be seen that her inaccurate exegesis led her to make a wrong conclusion here.

So as none of her Biblical references were based on (unequivocally) accurate Biblical understanding (including PP 63.3 which was similarly based on an inaccurate understanding of Rev 13:8), and were manifestly the basis for her non-direct, but “supposedly” Bible-derived statements, I rather defer to what was directly revealed to her in her vision in this 1SG/EW vision.

In fact I believe that she was making such statement elsewhere seeking to find, though exegetically not successfully, Biblical support in order to dampen the contradicting revelation from that vision.

The law of love is the foundation of God's government, and the service of love the only service acceptable to Heaven. God has granted freedom of will to all, endowed men with capacity to appreciate His character, and therefore with ability to love Him and to choose His service. So long as created beings worshiped God they were in harmony throughout the universe. While love to God was supreme, love to others abounded. As there was no transgression of the law, which is the transcript of God's character, no note of discord jarred the celestial harmonies. {TMK 366.2}

But known unto God are all His works, and from eternal ages the covenant of grace (unmerited favor) existed in the mind of God. It is called the everlasting covenant, for the plan of salvation was not conceived after the fall of man, but it was that which was "kept in silence through times eternal, but now is manifested, and . . . made known unto all the nations . . ." (Romans 16:25, 26, R.V.). . . . {TMK 366.3}

Before Him who ruleth in the heavens the mysteries of the past and future are alike outspread, and God sees beyond the woe and darkness and ruin that sin has wrought, the outworking of His purpose of love and blessing. Though clouds and darkness are round about Him, yet righteousness and judgment are the foundation of His throne. . . . Through the plan of salvation a larger purpose is to be wrought out even than the salvation of man and the redemption of the earth. Through the revelation of the character of God in Christ, the beneficence of the divine government would be manifested before the universe, the charge of Satan refuted, the nature and result of sin made plain, and the perpetuity of the law fully demonstrated. {TMK 366.4}

Then the extermination of sin will vindicate God's love and establish His honor before a universe of beings who delight to do His will, and in whose heart is His law. {TMK 366.5}

M: God's knowledge of the future includes the part He played. But such knowledge does not alter what He does as things play out. Knowing the outcome does not lessen the emotional stress.

K: Are you saying His knowledge cannot alter what He does?

So with all of these applicable internal Biblical specification, it can be concluded that the syntactical rendering of the (genitive case) “pro” in Eph 1:4 should be according to its possible, general, “Spatial” sense.

As she uses these to make her “therefore” conclusion, it can transparently be seen that her inaccurate exegesis led her to make a wrong conclusion here.

You wrote, "As I see it . . . EGW wrongly reads . . . her inaccurate exegesis led her to make a wrong conclusion." As I see it, on the other hand, I believe she arrived at the correct conclusion. However, I do not feel compelled to "defend myself". Ellen also wrote:


There has never been any doubt in God's mind. He has always known Jesus would succeed at saving and redeeming mankind thus magnifying the law and the character and kingdom of God.

So with all of these applicable internal Biblical specification, it can be concluded that the syntactical rendering of the (genitive case) “pro” in Eph 1:4 should be according to its possible, general, “Spatial” sense.

Rosangela: The preposition pro is clearly used in a temporal sense, not in a spacial sense, for "the foundation of the world" is obviously a point in time, and not a physical place. There is no question about that.

NJK: As she uses these to make her “therefore” conclusion, it can transparently be seen that her inaccurate exegesis led her to make a wrong conclusion here.

Rosangela: Under such a view nothing EGW wrote is reliable, and what she wrote can be even misleading.

Of the Godhead, Jesus said, "The Lord our God is one Lord." "They are one in purpose, in mind, in character, but not in person. It is thus that God and Christ are one." {8T 269.4} It is difficult to imagine the Father and Son having opposing views regarding implementing the plan of salvation. It is also difficult to imagine the Son initially having better or more complete ideas and insights about it than the Father.

I don’t see any logic towards understanding especially this issue by circularly quoting EGW’s comments and merely citing philosophical maxim and theories. We could circularly be here for weeks doing that. My foundation is first the Bible and direct SOP Revelation. The rest fall into line with this and the clear evidence it provides. The various words and expression in EGW’s vision, which as 1SP 45 shows she could have altered is she was at revelatory liberty to do so, are too clear and straightforward to see otherwise.