kland, try either one of those 2 realities: (1) I no longer have the window of time I could, albeit still sacrificially, set aside of recent months [just like a baker has time to do other things while their cakes are baking in the oven], particularly when no longer substantively worthwhile; and (2) I have already stated the answer to your questions. Manifestly you don’t want to accept them, what else can I do.

You are free to, even publicly, insinuatively, “deduce”/believe whatever you fancy. It does not affect the Truth nor change the pertinent facts and reality. (cf. Neh 6:5-8)

And I’ll add, as I have factually observed, that you and Tom don’t have an issue with me, but with how God has been revealed in the Bible, especially (supposedly, according to your views) everywhere else but the Gospels, and even Jesus Himself when that suits your views! And why... ‘because EGW (supposedly) says so’??! Talk about being completely unbiblical here. The contact info for that issue is in a way other Department (Try the top most floor).

(That is indeed precisely why I do not presently engage in discussions with e.g., Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Romans Catholic and/or Atheists - because the Bible is of no final authority to them vs. their, respectively prophet, various views, traditions and/or humanistic philosophies.)

P.S. And if all of these fail, (as they probably will somehow tangentially/peripherally be made to) do consider this as, at least in part, the ‘“Passion” of the NJK Project’ (cf. Post #132443 - Matt 13:10-17 - Isa 6:9-13; cf. John 16:25, 29-31), -“in part” because I am still bothering to provide substantively, referential/indicative answers.

Actually it's the other way around. You don't have any issue with us, but with how God has been revealed in the Bible and the SOP.

Do you find these sorts of comments helpful?

They should be....and just re-read the factual record showing how you outrightly avoid the exegetically incontrovertible and explicit revelations of God in both the Bible and the SOP that don’t fit within your view. You can try to spin this however you will, your own words/actions speak against you. And claiming/implying that the Bible/SOP are wrong does not you make you and your view (circularly) correct.

No, they shouldn't, as they're so obviously naive and arrogant. It's arrogant to think *I'm* the only one who can interpret the Bible properly, because only I do exegesis correctly.

The naive part is that everybody who voices an opinion thinks there opinion is correct. No one is going to express an opinion regarding the interpretation of Scripture that they think is contrary to Scripture. So there's no point in opining that "my view is correct, and yours is wrong." This is just a gratuitous assertion, and has no value whatsoever.

There's a difference between you and me on this point. I have not made the assertion that my view is correct and yours is wrong, or that I have the truth and you don't, or anything else like that. I view my understanding of the issues we're discussing as a work in progress. I've evolved in my thinking so much in the past, I have no reason to think that won't continue to happen. I'm merely sharing ideas which have been a blessing to me, hoping they will be a blessing to others as well. I invite any comments that lead to my understanding things better.

Talk about arrogant... It rather is quite arrogant, and also naive, on your part to think that you have me all figured out. Keep trying if you have time and effort to waste! And do try another standard than yourself, because I am not at all impressed nor ascribe to the “Mr. Nice Guy” moreoverly, “just looking for his lost, adorable puppy” act, especially when, “colloquially” so to speak, ‘all your trying to do is get my into your car.’ (= your, pointedly non-exegetical and unbiblical approach to Bible study which selectively ignores what the Bible and SOP actually state.) The real problem is that you are just so oblivious to yourself and see absolutely nothing wrong with what you’ve done/are doing. And when you may have finally come to snap out of yourself and manifestly begin to hear the ‘warning calls of fire,’ you vexatiously try to blame the one who was trying to wake you out of your preferred snooze. That won’t work with me. I have never accepted to become anyone’s “(vexatious) whipping boy”, no matter the “price”, and certainly won’t start with you, And again here, the prima facie record speaks clearly against all of the “whitewashing” claim attempts you have made here.... I don’t know from where you think that you know more than the Godhead (i.e., the OT God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit) and/or could have done a better job than him in managing this GC. Frankly it all sounds like Isa 13:13, 14, -the ideological locus of the Papacy. (Dan 7:25) all vs. Matt 5:17-20). It always starts with a man thinking that he knows better than God, and that belief also always starts with an incorrect understanding and application of a Scripture. Papacy = Matt 16:18, 19; 18:18; You = selectively and sectarianly overstated EGW comments including GC 35-37 which do not even historically/exegetically/prophetically/Biblically check out, as per the Isa 8:20/Acts 17:11/1Thess 5:21 Biblical principles.

And the Bible is interpreted correctly through proper exegesis! Sorry that your view cannot allow this to be the case. Your default and deliberate ignoring exegesis, starting with, when “convenient”, dismissing the explicit text itself, does not begin to pass as exegesis. And when this is being done by an Andrews Seminary Graduate, the only sequitur conclusion that, at least I, knowingly see is either stubborn indifference and/or gross incompetence. And what makes this worse is that your degree here makes you a default leader in the Church and others, as in this thread, may be fooled to think that you are actually advancing something that is scholarly sound. And by the way, that was the exact background setting for Christ’s public denunciation for Matt 23. Try reading it also in DA 610.1-614.1ff!!

NJK, you say you don't have time to respond to the points being made, but you're writing very long posts, so you do have time. It's just that you choose to use your time with insults and sarcasm rather than discussing issues in a friendly way.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

If you change you mind, and would like to discuss issues in a friendly way, I'd be happy to do so with you. I'm interested in your opinions and your way of thinking.

I don't need to have you all figured out to know that the statement that 'Those who disagree with me don't have issues with me, but with God,' is both arrogant and naive.

I'm afraid I have not found Tom to give that impression to me.




Now I may be mistaken, but it sounds to me that you are saying Tom and/or I do not interpret the Bible correctly but you indeed do.

As an additional observation, I believe it was the pope, whether honestly or dishonestly, which presented himself to the people as the only one who could properly interpret the Bible. Do you see why I see similarities as to which view is most similar to what allowed the papacy to come into being and why such will happen in the future?

Would you say your view of God's character matches the majority's, whether adventist or non-adventist? Will a proper understanding of God's character play a role in the last days? Do you think the majority will have it correct?

Tell me if I'm mistaken, but "whitewashing" is when you are taking something bad and trying to make it sound good.

Where has Tom done this?

Saying God is going to kill you personally before you die as a result of your own choices and then saying that shows His love sounds more like "whitewashing" to me.

Tom: You’ve advanced no reason for me to “change my mind.” So why should I?? Deal with the substance and not the eternal. (Matt 23:23, 24). When you’re ready to engage Biblical exegesis, let me know. Indeed re-read my posts to see exactly what I won’t expend time on. And when you, even implicitly, treat the Godhead as if they can be senile geezers, because they don’t stoically/indifferently/“open-mindedly” deal with things like you, you do have a issue squarely with the Godhead.

Funny that you claim that ‘you are interested in how I think’, but you won’t read my blog!?? Talk about a vacuous/facade/“pietistic show” statement!!

kland: You’re still not thinking things through, especially Spiritually.... Since I don’t “babysit” SDA’s, I won’t help you here. (Nothing personal, just my general policy). You don’t want a “pope,” but you sure act like a Roman Catholic who needs a priest to tell them what the Bible says/means.

Answer to both of you: Neh 6:3.

(And if either of you think this here takes any substantial time or effort, your just wishfully fancying yourselves. The annoying aggravation... that’s something else...)

I guess what I was objecting to was the suggestion that you are that vicar of pope.