So...that begs the question "What IS God REALLY saying in HIS WORD?

Shall we take your interpretation or understanding, dedication? Or maybe we whould take APL's. Or Daryl's, perhaps, since he runs the forum. Your Church Elder's?, or Pastor's?, or the local Bishop's, maybe. Or the Pope's.

WHO has authority to interpret Scripture?

Yes, the Pope! Sam Bacchiocchi even got a gold medal from the Pope himself, and he was the first to introduce this headship theology in Adventism:

What are you riculing? I went through the whole SDA church school system before 1970 with many different Bible teachers who were firm believers in the Spirit of Prophecy and we never heard of this Headship Theology before Sam Bacchiocchi sneaked in into the church. This has been verified by many who studied the Bible in our schools prior to to 1970.

It seems the last two posts are off-topic.

The Scriptures interpret themselves.

That was just the point.
When people take it upon themselves to determine what was and what wasn't inspired, and throw out that which they think was not inspired, they end up tearing the Bible to shreds.

And the same happens to EGW's testimonies when people try to decide what was and what was not inspired. Either those testimonies were inspired or they were not, it's not a pick this paragraph, throw out that paragraph deal.

I've seen too much of that -- people pick out every sentence they can find to substantiate their idea of truth, and throw out as uninspired all the sentences and paragraphs that show the whole meaning of that same issue.

No, no, Johann. I loved your post about the pope. ****** INAPPROPRIATE CONTENT REMOVED ***** His "Headship" so-called theology is a pure fabrication created entirely to shore up the dominant male status quo.

That is a meaningless non-answer. What does that mean?

And, if we take that for our answer, then that makes YOU the interpreter of Scripture, because we are taking what you say as authoritative. This can get messy real fast.

So, which Scripture interprets which Scripture, and on what basis and who says so?

Everybody picks and chooses which Scripture they want to believe and which they don't.

But was it because they like L.R. Conradi wanted to continue in a sin or what was harmful, so they rejected Ellen White and the testimonies she wrote because it pointed it out. By rejecting the SOP it led to even greater sin and damage to the church that it has not recovered fully even to this day.

Here is a little background and what happened with L. R. Conradi....Louis R. Conradi, 1856-1939, was leader of SDA work in Europe but he caused damage which was not apperant in the begining. "...In 1910 a missionary to the Turkish mission, Z. G. Baharian informed W. C. White and W. A. Spicer of increasing doubts concerning the spirit of prophecy. These doubts, according to Baharian, came largely from L. R. Conradi.

http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/1919bc/hal-4.htm

Baharian traced the roots of the differing positions to about 1898 when the question of health reform began to be introduced to Europe. He directly broached the question of the spirit of prophecy in a council meeting in Constantinople in October, 1910, at which Conradi was present. According to Baharian, Conradi spent some time seeking to prove that the Ellen White writings could be divided according to varying degrees of inspiration, consisting largely of two parts: testimonies which were largely revelations from God and other works that, while the subject matter was guided by the Holy Spirit, the content could contain errors and Conradi affirmed that he himself had corrected some of these "errors."..." With Conradi leading them from believing in the work of Ellen White, he did much damage which to this day still lingers. But the story gets worse.

The leadership of the Adventist church in Germany with Conradi leading them persecuted and reported any Adventist who would not support the war effort for the Kaiser in World War I. They went after any Adventist who stood up for the Sabbath or refused to enter the army and reported Adventist to the government. After the war the General Conference sent Spicer to check on what had occured but Conradi was not taken out and the results showed itself when Nazism again lured many Adventist in Germany a few years later.

During the rise of the Nazi Party, the Seventh-day Adventist church in Germany and Austria, was described as "a small sect which bent over backwards to accomodate National Socialism." (Ian Kershaw, "Hitler" a biography in two volumes. Vil.1, p 541)

The support by the Adventist church in Germany of Hitler is well documented and in 2005 the Austrian, North German, South German Union Conferences, published an apology for their actions during Hitler's era, which included urging young Seventh-day Adventist men to serve in the German army, even saying that it was dishonorable not to serve. There were brave Adventist youths who refused to violate their consciences and were executed by the Nazis.

Here is from the Adventist Review...

". In Europe, however, during the era of the two world wars, noncombatancy as a normative ideal suffered irreparable damage.

As World War I neared, Germany had the largest Adventist membership of any European nation. Ludwig R. Conradi, who played a major role in establishing Adventism in Europe, led the German church. Drawing on Ellen White's favorable comments from Basel in 1886 about Adventist participation in military drill exercises, Conradi basically repudiated noncombatancy. Under his leadership, the German church took the position that during wartime, Adventist draftees would not only bear arms, but also not make an issue of Sabbath observance. Conradi insisted only on Sabbath keeping by Adventist military personnel during peacetime.34

The General Conference condemned the German course after World War I, though Conradi argued that he was only following guidelines given him by church leaders. At a meeting in Gland, Switzerland, in 1923, European church administrators agreed upon a statement close to the American position, affirming that Adventists should refuse all combatant service as well as any non-humanitarian Sabbath work. The German church leaders admitted they had erred....."

http://www.adventistreview.org/2003-1535/story5.html

The Seventh Day Adventist Reform Movement came about as a result of the actions of L. R. Conradi and certain European church leaders during the war, who decided that it was acceptable for Adventists to take part in war, which was in clear opposition to the historical position of the church that had always upheld the non-combative position. Since the American Civil War, Adventists were known as non-combatants, and had done work in hospitals or to give medical care rather than combat roles.[3]

The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists sent Seventh-day Adventist minister and General Conference Secretary William Ambrose Spicer to investigate the changes, but was unable to change what L. R. Conradi and the others had done during the war.[4][5][6] After the war, the Seventh-day Adventist church sent a delegation of four brethren from the General Conference (Arthur Daniells, L. H. Christian, F. M. Wilcox, M. E. Kern) in July 1920, who came to a Ministerial Meeting in Friedensau with the hope of a reconciliation. Before the 200 Pastors and the Brethren from the General Conference present at this meeting, G. Dail, L. R. Conradi, H. F. Schuberth, and P. Drinhaus withdrew their statement about military service and apologized for what they had done. The Reformers were informed of this and the next day saw a meeting by the Adventist brethren with the Reform-Adventists. Daniells urged them to return to the Seventh-day Adventist church, but the Reform-Adventists maintained that the church leaders had forsaken the truth and the reconciliation failed.