I find it hard to believe that you, of all people, would even entertain the idea that Jesus was more determined to save and redeem mankind than was the Father. Don't you think the Father and the Son were equally determined to save and redeem mankind? How would the GC have played out if the loyal angels believed the Father argued against implementing the plan of salvation? Satan would have had a heyday with it.

Ohhh... keep the blame yourself Mountain Man. Do you not recall what happen in another discussion when I first believed that the resurrected saints or Christ could not have remained on earth for forty day. I strongly believed I was right until conclusive SOP evidence, harmonizable with the Bible was brought forth. You just need to likewise to the same here. So don’t try to blame me if you can’t/won’t and just prefer to expressed your philosophical opinions.

And for ascertaining reasons, and just for the transparent record, what other conversation are your referring to??

An exegetically clarifying point here. The word translated here as “before” (Gr. pro #4253), is syntactically understood to also have the “spatial” meaning of at in this genitive case. (Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond The Basics, 379). So it would thus have the general (prior) meaning of : ‘(priorly, even) at the foundation of the world’. Thus from the time when the plan of salvation was implemented.

Perhaps Paul did not know exactly when that establishment took place, thus the general “at” sense. And that understanding was directly, prophetically specified in e.g., Rev 13:8 which specifies that ‘the Lamb was typologically slain “away from” (Gr. “apo”) the foundation of the world.’ I.e., from the time that Adam and Eve sinned and a typifying Lamb had to be sacrificed. (Cf. Rev 17:8 which also uses the same “apo” preposition to speak of the book of life which includes the names of all those who have been inscribed in it having chosen God’s Salvation going back to that time when it was first implemented. (No Lamb’s Book of Life needed for this Planet before the Fall of Man.)*

Indeed if the Lamb’s Book of Life only became a reality after the Fall, how could Christian be chosen in Chirst (i.e., by God having established Christ as an Atonement) before the Fall, and thus the need for a Sacrificial Lamb, had occurred!

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.

This syntactical choice, as I have seen many be, is confirmed by what was straightforwardly shown to have transpired in Heaven in this direct revelation in the SOP. I.e., “no way of escape had been made before the Fall of Man.”

It is also significant that EGW speaks of the plan of Redemption after the Fall. Why, as it would chronologically be due, not before if it had been established long before. And furthermore when she does relate it here, it is with all of these expression of ‘agitation, perplexity, troubling-doubt, reluctance, unyeilding, struggle, among the other points raised above depicting this uncertainty and/or refusals to permit.)

*(The extent of the names in that book in the end time context in Rev 17:8 is to include anyone to whom it can be applicable. So e.g., it does not say, any not written there in the past 50 years, as a 60 year old person would be exempt from that judgement. Revelation’s Babylon is indeed the ultimate opposing entity to God on Earth. That is why it was derived from Satan emulating, (probably directly inspired in order to have an earthly power to completely defeat God’s Israel) actions of real king of Babylon (Isa 13:1ff, 14:12-14; 15ff). Satan probably saw by now that if he wanted to oppose God, he needed such a powerful kingdom such as Babylon, that he probably noticed that God was favorably working with for prophetic intents (cf. Dan 2), to innate hate God. So he here sought to inspire it to think that it was above the God of Heaven, or at least plant that seed in them. Indeed Babylon, unlike the Medo-Persian Empire, had a most religious intolerant stance. Even e.g., renaming captured people according to their gods. Medo-Persia let peoples under them freely worship their own Gods, as would also the Greek and the Romans.)

In a way, Tom, so do I, given that in our other discussion you say that Christ fully revealed the Father’s Character. I too would like to hear your beliefs here.

I see that God did love* the world however, He just did not see then that the chances of failure were worth the risk. So in the end, Jesus talked Him into yielding and only by having a love for the world was that even possible to occur. One cannot be convinced without threats to do something which they hate, even if there is much risk involved. Love for Jesus, seeing how this greatly saddened Him probably also served to win Him out.

*By the way, pertinent to this discussion. John 3:16 does not, as commonly rendered ‘“Soooo (much)” Loved the world...’, but “so” as in the sense of: “in this similar way” (Gr. Adverb houto #3779) and this all is making a retrospective comparison to what God had done in the wilderness with the Salvific snake of Moses (John 3:14, 15).

The fact that it is also that: “Jesus was communing with His Father” {EW 149.2} implies to me, its definition of: “Communicate intimately with; be in a state of heightened, intimate receptivity” that: (a) this conversation was indeed of a first, non-previously discussed, instance and (b) that it was Jesus who was having to come “in tune” with the Father’s concern here (e.g., a person communing with nature), though Jesus was ‘yielded to’ in the end. It instead could have been said that ‘The Father and Jesus were communing with each other’. That ‘Jesus’ receptivity’ notion here is corroborated by the related three attempts before the Father’s mercy-filled ‘yielding’ occurred.

And the non-related reciprocal communing, though the Father did yield to Jesus, further indicates to me that it was indeed entirely an act of undeserved mercy towards fallen man. The Father really did not have to yield His position, indeed by Himself seeming to have become receptive, while He manifestly simply okayed Jesus’ request. Indeed it was not said that the Father had summoned Jesus to discuss this, as it should have been if that mercy option was His deemed best choice, but that Jesus went to the Father to discuss this.

Pleading 'three' times cannot be compared to birthing 'three' children, which I hope you weren't trying to say. Experiencing emotional stress knowing the full outcome would not require pleading three times. How could pleading three times not be considered role playing if they knew full well how it would turn out. And why would it be a 'struggle'? While there might be stress, if knowing how it would turn out, it wouldn't be a struggle.

Interesting thought: If God did know the future as already played out, then wouldn't He also know that He would agree, then therefore would not need three times and surely it not be a 'struggle'? Or was He unable to change the three times of pleading since it had, already played out?

Yes, I do recall you changing your mind about the forty days. Thank you for reminding me. I had in mind your discussions with Tom on this thread. I believe the following passages provide inspired support for the view I've been advocating:

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.

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.

Great!! Notwithstanding the extra stress and effort on my part to have to defend myself.



You need to point this out because I do not see that I have had any sharp discussions/disagreements with Tom on “this thread”.


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.