In the interim before his death, the pastor was given a printed Bible study and asked to evaluate it. He said that he would and did not.

When several weeks had past, he was asked what he thought of the study. He replied, that he had not gotten to it yet, but that he would. The way he said that he would review it came across as though it was the last thing that he would do if Christ did not come first.

During this interval, he was lifted up to God in prayer for a season and a tornado came through the area. The pastor saw it at a distance and watched it and wondered if it would go near his house. Then he made his way to his house. He rejoiced to see it standing. The massive trees all around were devastated. He said that he had never seen such destruction. And there in the midst of all of the destruction his house stood. It looked so perfect and so out of place. He was awed at the destruction all around and it stood.

But to his horror, upon closer examination the back wall was torn out. The inside was gutted, that which remained was knurled and twisted. From the road it looked great, but the inside was devastated and it had to be demolished and rebuilt. And it was.

The last thing that man did was to rebuild his house before going on his mission trip where he dropped dead. He never got to read that Bible study that he promised to review.

Across the street from ther pastor's house there was an old man (a SDA) in his house. From his glass porch he saw the great trees being uprooted and tossed like match sticks as the storm approached his home. In his hour of need, he dropped to his knees and committed his life to Jesus to spare or take. His house was untouched. His life was spared. but there was not a tree left standing in his yard.

Another SDA family within sight of the Pastor's house had their home wiped from its slab. their jeep was picked up and placed so neatly as though parked where their living room had been. They were in the house but it happened so fast. One got a broken arm and the other contusions. How they were in the house and survived when the house was blown away from around them ...a mystery and a miracle.

Over the hill from the pastor's house 2 SDA boys 8 and 10 were home alone for what was supposed to be an hour while mom and dad ran an errand. The boys saw the storm coming. ran into the house and hid next to the front wall by a sofa that sat in front of a plate glass window. Due to the downed trees the frantic parents arrived home early the next morning (10 to 12 hours later). The 2 story brick house had been flipped onto its back. The only part of the house still standing was a section of the front wall next where the sofa had been. It was the exact place where the two boys had taken shelter.

You can call everything here a coincidence. And you can use you logic to extrapolate conclusions that fit your preferences. But the hand of God was at work in this storm. And the pastor's house looked so good on the outside, but it was so bad on the inside. And the pastor that had time to rebuild his house but not time to study a Bible study that he did not want to study dropped dead before he had the time to study it. And those folks that prayed for God to replace him in the pulpit of their church felt guilty for many years after he died.

Rejecting the testimonies that God sends to His people at His time is not wise. And practicing "selected messages" picking and choosing the testimonies that please us and rejecting those that do not fit our way of thinking is not wise. God will bear with our foolish behavior for a season and then judgment will come as it did in the days of Noah.

You do not make yourself believable by the way you go about things. You give a "story" with no evidence and draw conclusions completely unwarranted by the lack of evidence, and then when called on it come up with a detailed "story".

Sorry, I just don't buy it at this point. The way I see things, if your story was true you would have given your evidence at the very first so you would have been seen as believable. You did not. It's no more possible for me to ascertain the truth of the story you tell than it is for me to agree with your original conclusions based upon no evidence.

Pr 18:13 "He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him."

It is better to enter into a discussion before going off half informed and drawing personal conclusions that are ill founded. And what is the merit in clinging to wrong conclusions and trying to justify them when more information comes to light?

1843 is a great illustration of this false logic. When Christ did not come, many people who had embraced the Advent message were convinced that they had been deceived and they turned away from truth. Then when the 1844 message came to them, they had their minds made up that it was more of the same. Then when Christ did not come in 1844 those who had convinced themselves that the first error was being followed by another error of the same magnitude prided themselves that they had learned in time to avoid being deceived again.

Then when the truth of the Cleansing of Heaven's Sanctuary was revealed, those who had convinced themselves that the 1843 and 1844 messages were deception, placed themselves in a position that rejected the further light as it was revealed.

Better to hear a matter and ask questions than to draw wild conclusions that entrench oneself into a position that is not in one's best interest.

HC,

Do you not understand what I said? I'll try to restate it for you. You have not given a single fact that I can verify by independent means. Therefore your story is an unknown. As it is not verifiable none of your conclusions are verifiable. Even if the story was verifiable it is impossible to prove to God killed someone.

This is a lot like your "the Greek letter Omega looks like an O" theory. Really? Well, the Greek letter Omega is also the last letter of the Greek alphabet so it would correspond to the letter Z in the English alphabet. Oops. No Presidents with a last name that starts with Z. Oh, I have a solution. The Seattle Mariners have a catcher by the name of Mike Zunino. He will be the last US President.

My private interpretation is just as valid as yours. At least my interpretation has some logic to it: last letter of each alphabet. However, they are both based upon nothing but wild guesses. And, my guess about Mike Zunino is just as verifiable as your story. At least I gave a name that is verifiable through independent sources.

Lastly, do you not realize the full meaning of the text you quoted? It means if I cannot verify and find solid reasoning behind some assertion, then it is to my shame to accept whatever is being put forth when there is no way to "hear" the full matter. It is impossible to verify what you are saying so it would be to my shame to accept it.

The only source which I assume to be true is the Bible. All other sources require verification.

You speak the words that are in your heart.

Not once did you ask for names or addresses or email addresses that you could seek to know if I spoke the truth. You just assumed that the information was not verifiable. Did you want to take the time to try to verify it? Then you assume that it is not verifiable and thus it is not true.

And your baseball player straw argument only shows that you don't like the fact that the American Presidents (Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama) are identified in Daniel 7 or that their names have the reversed AW sequencing from letters that look like an alpha and an omega are written. Or that the first of them (Reagan) or the last of them (Obama) actually have alpha and omega sequencing reversed in their names.

So you explain away what you don't want to believe and fault the messenger for being in error.

Self-justification and self-deception are not fruits of the Spirit.

People that truly believe the Bible, study to prove all things before they make up their minds and speak evil of that which is true.

As it is written, "Ac 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."

I was wondering if he was suggesting he was praying that I die for exposing his fallacy.

Noticing a characteristic interpretation of assumptions regarding all things whether coincidental stories or the Bible?

And who, do you suppose, gave the pastor the "bible study"?
"And the pastor that had time to rebuild his house but not time to study a Bible study that he did not want to study dropped dead before he had the time to study it."

The "lesson" being given is, 'Believe what I tell you or God is going to kill you.'

After reading this
and weeping before God's throne
I brushed off my shoes
and logged out.

You have had 3 opportunities to post verifiable resources, knowing that I had a problem with accepting non-verifiable resources, yet you blame me for you not posting your resources.

***shakes head in amazement***

My experience is that anyone online who has verification posts it up front if they want to be believed. Did you do it? Nope. Have you done it? Nope.

BTW, an email address is not verifiable. Anyone can anonymously create an email address and then answer anything sent to that address. Verifiable resources means posting links to known reliable resources. For me that is news sites, Gleaner, Review, etc.... If you can't post those types of resources, then your story is not verifiable.

I agree with all that you posted re HCs lack of evidence. But I do have a question about this statement you made. How do you "verify" a particular news site or other online resource as being reliable information? Do you actually trust The Gleaner % Review completely? I would also extend my asking of this question to Elle as she has also posted a lot from certain sites. How do we decide whats Propoganda, and what is actually "the news?"

I think Gary was suggesting a benefit of doubt. But not even doubtable evidence was presented.

You are right, and it has been done before, that the presenter would send the made up story to the news, the news blindly reports it, then the presenter gives the news story as supporting evidence. But not even that was done. Nothing. Nada.

But in this case, do you think that if there was a news story about a tornado destroying some houses and not others, it would at least be something which could be verified?


There is a condition, I forget the details but it was regarding Ron Wyatt, where someone wants something to be true so much, they dwell on it, and they actually believe/convince themselves things have happened, which actually didn't.