GC, I, too, totally dig your chart. Nice work. However, I'm surprised you believe she applied her forbid/warning/threat comment exclusively to people in leadership positions. In the same article, just three paragraphs preceding the one under examination, she wrote:


I see no indication she intended for us to assume "any man or woman who claims to believe in the word of God" excludes everyone except people in leadership positions.

Those are not necessarily the only two options.

Did she ever use "I saw" to mean something other than Jesus showed her in a dream or vision?

The statement relates to the source of her visions, not what she said about them. You said that the visions came either from God or from Satan. I maintain that there may be other explanations for her "visions". It does not have to be exclusively one or the other, God or Satan.

But a new thread should be started if you want to continue this train of thought. (Or dig up an old one, since it has been discussed on MSDAOL before.)

Mike,

I agree with you, actually. What my chart is doing is proving that Ellen White is correct in saying that the Bible says what it does say. However, what Ellen White does NOT say in that same statement is also important. She does not try to reapply the Bible's words for the Biblical time period. She does, however, in strong words--as you have aptly pointed out--indicate that we, today, should be amply instructed by the Bible to avoid alcohol completely. I agree. I do not think it is necessary today (or would rarely be necessary) for anyone to consume alcohol.

Uriah Smith had his leg amputated in 1844, when he was only about 12 years old. Because of his age, he did not get the relief usually given to adults in the form of alcohol to deaden the pain. The procedure took about 20 minutes, as I understand. No anesthesia. Ouch! Fortunately, such a circumstance as this would be virtually non-existent in today's modern countries. We have anaesthesia.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

You changed "kill" to "murder", but maybe you are objecting to my statement that the Bible forbids "killing". Although I don't recall you as one attempting to distinguish between the two, it has become quite amusing when others do.

You did a good job showing from the Bible where it forbids drinking. Just like Tom has shown you where killing was never a part of God's government nor was it ever intended for the Israelites to kill. It was only because of the hardness of their hearts that He instructed them how to carry on what they insisted on doing. Just because you can find places in the Bible where it talks about drinking, polygamy, and killing, doesn't mean it is God's will. I've heard some say that because sodomy is in the Bible, that means it's ok. Do we have to conclude Ellen White must be wrong about these things when she says otherwise? Or is it something to do with how we are reading it?

Just like it comes across to me that JAK and GC have some motivation for wanting the Bible to support drinking, you must have some motivation for the Bible to support killing. Why is that so? Why so, for something which is so contrary to God's character? I recall in grade school believing with great satisfaction, that another kid who was being mean, that God was going to get him and burn him! That made me happy. But it also gave me a background sense of fear of what God would do to me if I should step over the line. But now, I've come to realize that God is not like that at all, that my belief was due to my selfish reasons. Is there something of your belief the same way? Is there something in each of us of a similar nature, whether it be God getting our enemies or drinking or smoking or having plural wives, which causes us to read into the Bible and insist it says a certain thing regardless of anything which says contrary?

GC, I think it is clear she said God never permitted or tolerated alcohol consumption. Which means Deut 14:26 and Prov 31:6-7 cannot be taken literally. Again, I suspect the translators goofed.

If the translators goofed, then there is no such thing as alcohol mentioned in the entire Bible, Mike.

The Hebrew word used in those texts is "shekar." There is nothing tame about that beverage.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

What do you surmise about my motivations here, kland? I do not drink. I have never drunk. I will never drink alcohol. I am not interested, even, in doing so. The practice is repugnant to me. No one in my (immediate) family drinks. I am happy when I have been mocked for not drinking when associating with others who do.

What could be my motivation, kland? I have taken active roles in educating people about the evils of drink. Why would I want the Bible to teach opposite to how I feel about it?

The fact is, kland, I don't. I don't want the Bible to teach such. It doesn't, either. It clearly outlines the woes of drink. BUT, I must accept the Bible's clear teachings without allowing my own biases and/or prejudices to prevent me from understanding them. This means being honest with myself and with the Word of God. That honesty, kland, is what leads me to recognize that the Bible does indeed allow certain things which to me seem counter-intuitive.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

kland, this is the second time I have had to defend myself against your scurrilous attacks. I consider this to be slanderous and cyber bullying, not to mention un-Christian. You are unable to defend your viewpoint with legitemate points from Scripture, so you resort to attacking the character of your opponents.

I am lodging a complaint with the Administrators of MSDAOL, AND I am requesting an apology, AND that you cease and desist from these actions. If you can not discuss a viewpoint without attacking the opponent, stay out of the arguement.

In my opinion your actions contravene the following Forum Rules and notations:

2 - No one will attack another individual. Others will not be directly attacked on the basis of their knowledge, beliefs, or doctrinal understanding. They will not be referred to as a heretic, etc. unless you can clearly back it up from their own public writings from their own book or web site.

3 - A person's standing before God, and their salvation will not be questioned.

4 - People will be allowed to express disagreements without fear of being attacked or of being judged. One may state that a position, or fact, is wrong. This addresses the issue, and not the person. But, there is an expectation that one who does this will then propose a correct fact or position. People have a choice as to whether they concentrate on the negative, or on the positive. People can choose to be positive. In addition, none of us really have all truth on a subject. If we seek to understand another view, we can understand why others might find it to be incorrect. It really does not hurt truth to acknowledge where we don't have it all sewed up, and the other person has an understandable point, even if wrong.

5 - Strong disagreements will be expressed in an attitude of civility, and mutual respect.

Also the disclaimer: We at Maritime SDA OnLine also reserve the right to reveal your identity (or whatever information we know about you) in the event of a complaint or legal action arising from any message posted by you.