Ded--Yes, we do need to balance the statements --
And which way do the balances tip?

The balance of EGW writings do NOT support this kingdom in Palestine theory.

Notice clearly AGAIN, Dedication continues to use EGW's writings as the trump card if you will, meaning that when she says "balance" she means using EGW over Scripture. Scripture has about 10 to 1 reference FOR the pre-mil kingdom.

Inspired Quote--"That which God purposed to do for the world through Israel, the chosen nation, He will finally accomplish through His church on earth today. He has “let out His vineyard unto other husbandmen,” even to His covenant-keeping people, who faithfully “render Him the fruits in their seasons.”

Never has the Lord been without true representatives on this earth who have made His interests their own. These witnesses for God are numbered among the spiritual Israel, and to them will be fulfilled all the covenant promises made by Jehovah to His ancient people."

Ded- You are taking a vague quote here and their and trying to make it fit your kingdom theory;

Now if that don't take the cake!! Let us look at those last words and see if you see vagueness there(?)

.. to them will be fulfilled all the covenant promises made by Jehovah to His ancient people."

You see people this is what Satan does with his people who know not that they are representing him by falsifying God's INSPIRED words and promises! Wow!

Now, concerning the rest of her post, remember as shown there are basically six main covenant promises made to old Israel, as follows- They are the following:

Abrahamic Covenant
Mosaic Covenant
Sabbatic Covenant
Palestinian or Land Covenant
Davidic Covenant
New Covenant

I've underlined to two covenants that concern our study--God pre-millennial kingdom. Please go to new thread (Isaiah 11 -strong evidence of His kingdom) and look at one of the most powerful and clear Scriptures that convincingly shows He will indeed set His upcoming kingdom up in Israel. This report is know as rock solid, if one truly wishes to see what it plainly says.

Do you believe Ellen White explains the Scriptures, or only if she agrees to how you interpret them?

You're making no sense.

Who is "to them"?

What's even more interesting -- if you go back a page and look over the last couple posts.

I simply took the quote from EGW which GLL used as his "trump card" and posted the full context from which he had pulled that quote.

Kland-- You're making no sense.

Who is "to them"?

Have you thought about following the prior posts before jumping to conclusions.

here's the quote stated in a couple posts prior to the one you cited--

"That which God purposed to do for the world through Israel, the chosen nation, He will finally accomplish through His church on earth today. He has “let out His vineyard unto other husbandmen,” even to His covenant-keeping people, who faithfully “render Him the fruits in their seasons.”

Never has the Lord been without true representatives on this earth who have made His interests their own. These witnesses for God are numbered among the spiritual Israel, and to them will be fulfilled all the covenant promises made by Jehovah to His ancient people." (Prophets and Kings, page 713-714)

Kland- Do you believe Ellen White explains the Scriptures, or only if she agrees to how you interpret them?

Absolutely I believe EGW was inspired and helps us to understand Scripture. That being said I do not believe her writings supersede the Bible as she herself told us.

GLL, thank you for confirming what I was saying.


You say she does not supersede the Bible. Do you see places where she disagrees with it, or you mean what, exactly?

I mean that our "understanding" of her writings must not be that "it" supersedes the Scriptures. A perfect example of that is using Testimonies, vol. 1, p.68-69 as "proof" that there will be little children in the new earth. Scripture clearly points to no marriages or "given" in marriage(impregnating). Additionally it tells us we will 'grow up" just as calves grow up.

As far as some of her more difficult areas of writings, I would say that it may appear she is disagreeing or changing our understanding of Scripture, but that truly is where the "Spirit of Truth" must be prayerfully relied upon and seeked in counsel.

Basically what that is saying -- is -- Houteff's interpretations of scripture supersede EGW's writings, as well as anything anyone finds in scripture.

When you use scripture to reason with a Houteff follower they will accuse you of "private interpretation".

If you use EGW's writings to reason with them they will accuse you of "pitting" her writings against scripture.
When in actuality it is Houteff's interpretation of scripture that is being disagreed with.

But then -- just read the Zechariah "interpretation" presented by GLL in "Summary of our Zechariah 4 Lesson" thread.
It twists the meaning of that passage to come to the conclusion that ONLY Houteff is the final word on how Scripture is to be interpreted.



The "other" that GLL is referring to is V. Houteff.
And one just has to read the prologue to this thread to realize SR followers teach EGW was given only partial truth, while they think Houteff gives the full truth.

Thus in their minds Houteff is THE final and complete authority on the interpretation of scripture and woe be to anyone who doesn't bow in low submission to his final word. They must be utterly destroyed and then the Houteff believers "think" they will set up a righteous kingdom in present Jerusalem.



However, -- it can't be true.
EGW gives a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ENDTIME PICTURE than Houteff.
While Houteff uses a lot of Adventist thought and millions of short EGW quotes, it is still evident they are not presenting the same message.

The covenants

The OT presents the covenants of the types -- shadows of the reality.

Christ stands in the center of the covenants of types, and the covenant of the reality (the everlasting covenant.

The covenant of types had a sanctuary on earth
The covenant of reality points us to the heavenly sanctuary

The covenant of types had a system of animal sacrifice to typify the need of a substitute to bare sins
The covenant of reality, Christ Whose blood alone could atone for our sins, died upon Calvary.

The covenant of types had human priests on earth
The covenant of reality points us to Christ our Great High Priest in heaven.

The covenant of types had a human king on an earthly throne.
The covenant of reality points us to Christ, the King of kings and Lord of lords whose kingdom will be eternal.

The covenant of types had a city -- called Jerusalem built by man
The covenant of reality points us to a city whose builder and maker is God -- a heavenly city the NEW Jerusalem.

The covenant of types had a small piece of earthly land in Palestine called the promised land.
The covenant of reality says the saints will inherit the earth, the whole earth is their promised inheritance.


Through Christian history we see religionists trying to re-establish the types of the covenants in the place of the reality of God's covenant.

Are the "shadows" that only typified reality the glorious hope?
Or is the reality the glorious hope?

The kingdom that is the crowning hope of every child of God, is the heavenly kingdom where we can be forever with our Savior.