controversey with the great controversy

[tall73]

So are you stating that God allowed there to be errors so it would fit the knowledge of their time?

 

[djconklin]

Well, let's put it this way: would you, if you were God, tell someone something that wouldn't be confirmed while they were alive? Or, at least, till long after their reputation has need ruined because you made them the laughing stock of all who heard it? Wouldn't it be more likely that on some things God works within the limits of what we do know? Isn't it those who wish to get hung up over alleged errors that are quite minor really revealing that they never really wanted, or were willing, to believe in the first place? Kind of like the Israelites who went and threw a "party" while Moses was up on the mountain with God, didn't they show what they really believed?

Well first of all you said sometimes you agreed wtih Prescott even when they didn't.

Where's the problem?

So, what is the problem?

 

[Adventist Heretic]

]Well, let's put it this way: would you, if you were God, tell someone something that wouldn't be confirmed while they were alive? Or, at least, till long after their reputation has need ruined because you made them the laughing stock of all who heard it? Wouldn't it be more likely that on some things God works within the limits of what we do know?

If I Were God I wouldn't send inaccurate info. I would not send something that could not have been known or that later would have been proven false and then expect every one to believe it. That is opposite of what the scripture does and all the communication the God has had with this planet. that is just crazy.

Isn't it those who wish to get hung up over alleged errors that are quite minor really revealing that they never really wanted, or were willing, to believe in the first place? Kind of like the Israelites who went and threw a "party" while Moses was up on the mountain with God, didn't they show what they really believed?

I have to disagree, you are impuning the motives of people and you don't know them. The COI reference in not applicable here
because they saw
1. 10 plagues brought on them by God in conformation of Moses. Very clear who God was with.
2. Pillar of cloud and fire to lead them. very clear Who God was with.
3. The Red Sea parted. Very clear who God was with.
4. Manna given to eat . Very clear who God was with.
5. Fire on the mountain top. Very clear who God was with.
6. The most powerful nation on the planet decimated . Very clear who God was with.

Ellen has had no miracles confirming her work. We have to use our rational mind to decern between fiction and reality and it is pretty hard to tell some times with her writings. I think that is a very defensive stance youve taken. Critics some time criticize with Good reason. Just because some one is questioning does not mean they don't want to believe, It may mean that they actually want to belive, but can't simply because the evidence tells them other wise.

 

[tall73]

Isn't it those who wish to get hung up over alleged errors that are quite minor really revealing that they never really wanted, or were willing, to believe in the first place? Kind of like the Israelites who went and threw a "party" while Moses was up on the mountain with God, didn't they show what they really believed?

No.

So, what is the problem?

If you can believe that God intentionally told facts that were wrong--and quoted from authors of the day to do it-- then there is no problem for you.

An alternative would be that she is not an historical source of authority.

 

[freeindeed2]

Amen! A thousand amens!

That's about all I can say!

 

[djconklin]

If you can believe that God intentionally told facts that were wrong

I don't make the verbal inspiration assumption to begin with.

An alternative would be that she is not an historical source of authority.

Who said she had to be?

 

[Adventist Heretic]

conklin, could you explain the different views of inspiration and then your particular view for clarification.

 

[djconklin]

From my reading this weekend:

W.W. Prescott made a total of approx. 105 suggestions; about half of which were accepted. The critics tell you that there were many changes made to GC--sure doesn't sound like it.

In 1920, R&H "published a 300-page college textbook prepared by" Prescott. There were over 500 notes in quote marks, but without citation from outside sources. Prescott notes that they were not cited as authority but because they were "used merely for the expression of the thought, no credit" had been given. See http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/GC-Prescott.html.

 

[djconklin]

conklin, could you explain the different views of inspiration and then your particular view for clarification.

Actually, it is revelation and inspiration that need to be considered.

Two basic theories:

1) Verbal dictation
2) Thought (or plenary) inspiration.

My view is a blend of the two.

Now it is your turn.

 

[djconklin]

And we are still waiting.

 

[maco]

Dreams, visions, even signs or wonders that come to pass should not qualify a prophet if they teach things that can't be found in or confirmed by the word of God.

Deuteronomy 13:1-3 "If there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder which he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, 'Let us go after other gods,' which you have not known, 'and let us serve them,'' "you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, for the Lord your God is testing you to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

 

[djconklin]

And we are still waiting.

And over two years later we're still waiting.

 

[honorthesabbath]

ROFL--I wondered why this thread had been resurrected!! Too funny.

 

[djconklin]

I was trying to use the search feature to find the other thread I just started. This was one of the "finds" and then I saw the post from over two years ago!

 

[reddogs]

Mod Hat

This thread is closed for staff review.

Reddogs
Moderator
Ecumenical Team

 

[reddogs]

After checking on the process for old threads, here is how it is handled. If any of the new posts are inappropriate for the current forum such as the Traditional forum, then that post should be reported with the reason given for reporting it that is not appropriate for the Trad forum. Remember that old posts more than two weeks are not actioned, and also posts cannot retractively be actioned for new rules to protect members from posts that were within the rules at the time. If the thread with the reported post is then determined by staff that it is inappropriate for the current forum, in this case the Trad forum, but OK to in another forum, then it can be moved there and reopened.

Mod Hat Off

Reddogs
Moderator
Ecumenical Team