"precede the second coming" includes all the timelines that mark out the endtime events that precede the second coming, not point to the actual second coming date.

And, she says, these all reached to 1844.

And yet so much of the "new light" is simply trying to map out the events of the future on timelines!

I don't think she meant that due to her many and strong statements that there are NO more last day message based on time.

So what did she mean?



So we don't fully understand everything on WHAT compromises the mark of the beast and the actual difficulties that will be faced when civil laws enforce a counterfeit commandment.




This isn't talking about mapping out timelines. This is digging deep into the spiritual meanings!

The problem with your statement here is that it doesn't match Mrs. White's teaching. You have overgeneralized.

It reminds me of the creeping compromise form of error that I see in some of the modern Bible translations. For example, whereas the KJV has translated "uncover [someone's] nakedness," the NIV and others now have "have sexual relations with [someone]." Is it ok now to "see" but not "touch?" (I.e. one can uncover the nakedness of anyone, so long as it does not go beyond? Nudity anyone?)

When we change the scope, we alter the meaning. When we alter the meaning, we lose information that may have been important to our ability to correctly understand the original message.

This is why I'm so fastidious about this point from Mrs. White's writings. She worded her statements rather carefully, repeatedly referencing "definite time." To adjust that to the new scope of "time" in general is risky, in my opinion.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

"definite time" predictions is putting last day events into definite time frames
"general time" is simply understanding them without any attempts to place them in definite time frames.

It's attributing DEFINITE time onto the events -- like mapping them out on a "so many days for this and that" a "after so many days this will happen" type of time line.

I see the continuoes attempt to place "definite time" onto the last day events as clearly the compromising going on.

How do we know who is right? Because I don't see it this way. When Mrs. White spoke of "definite time," she was contrasting what happened in 1844 with what would not happen again--an exact date proclaimed for Jesus' Second Coming. I see the "definite time" as a reference to a precise date for this event. I do not see it as precluding all prophetic events, nor even of erasing all precise times.

God is a god of precision. He is a god of timeliness. Things will happen on time according to His schedule. Furthermore, Amos 3:7 indicates that He will reveal His secrets to His servants the prophets, and Joel has told us that many will prophesy. Ellen White was not the last of a dying breed. There will be more. What messages will they bring us? Can we be sure there will be no prophecies in them? No times whatsoever?

When we apply such broad strokes to the prophetic times, broader than Mrs. White herself did, I think we imperil our understanding of the truth.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I find it hard to believe Jesus allowed Ellen to endorse both Litch and Smith if they were wrong. He runs the risk of Ellen being branded a false prophet.

It appears you are reading the paragraph above as if Ellen was writing chronologically. You seem to be saying Jesus doesn't leave the sanctuary until “after” the plagues are poured out. However, if the following passages describe the same event, namely, Jesus leaving the sanctuary, isn't it clear the plagues fall after Jesus leaves the sanctuary?


If the plagues fall after Jesus leaves the sanctuary wouldn't it stand to reason, therefore, that the "number of days" begins the moment He leaves the sanctuary? Ellen wrote: "While the cloud was passing from the Holiest to the east, which took a number of days, the Synagogue of Satan worshiped at the saints feet."

You seem to mean that "a number of days" imply a few days and cannot be 3.5 years.

I'm not sure why you are applying what I said to the wicked. Maybe you're concerned how they will live to persecute people. As far as the wicked, haven't we already discussed in days/years past that there will be very few alive when Christ comes? But your quote said they are not universal. I have re-read those pages.


For some reason, that sure sounds familiar.

Would you be saying, "plunge" and "great", and "ruin more terrible" would come in just a few days?


Would you be saying, "will be continued", "inspire them", "malignant designs", is accomplished in just a few days?


Would you be saying, "urged", "finally", and "after a certain time", happens within a few days? That immediately after the plagues begin, lawmakers will instantly pass laws withing hours or days to allow others to kill people?


Would you be saying "stir up", "urge", "are resisting", can happen within a few days?


Would you say, "try them to the uttermost" is fully tried within a few days, that Satan wouldn't cry foul?

Would you likewise say, they are fully tested as to whether they would "yield" in just a few days?

Would you say, "hear the plottings" and "see the active working of rebellion" all happens within a few days? Maybe, if it happens at the time the plagues start, we still have access to the Internet and can hear and see it. But, would "intense desire" and "earnest yearning of soul" all come about to them within a few days?



Would you say, "do not cease their intercessions" is considered not ceasing when it's over with in a few days?

Would you say, "weariness, delay, and hunger" and being "severely tried" all happens within a few days? Would delaying within a few days be considered worth mentioning?

There's much more, but I'd say that you can do the rest.

I'm not sure that would be a proper conclusion as stated. Many suffer with infection for years.
How did it work in Egypt?
True. That's why, "While the wicked are dying from hunger and pestilence, angels will shield the righteous and supply their wants." But, as you quoted, it is not universal. Some do live.

So, that's how we determine who is right - go read it myself? I did read, and I have determined.
Thanks for the advice.

Daniel Jesus asks the same question even though He explained it to Daniel in Chapter 9? Did Jesus fail?

This doesn't define it nor distinguish between symbolic and literal time.

Neither does this.

And neither does this.


Well...at least some prophetic time closed in 1844. But you failed to show it being defined as literal or symbolic.
Do you think it did?
Do you think all ingredients in bread are not bread ingredients.