Adding to the Word?

[michaeneu]

Well, my conversation at the time was with RC and he has not answered the question. I don't consider it answered by him. Fine if someone else wants to share their opinion.

I tire of this whole "popery" thing. Find me a trad that buys into that.

Again, the phrase "I was shown" was used by EGW to refer to times that she had been shown things by God.

First, it is more than just opinion that EGW did not receive the same gift of prophecy as the authors of both Testaments. Period.

Secondly, the popery thing will always enter into it when individuals like you hold those quotes up that state that any who reject the Testimones of EGW are "not right"! That is popery, plain and simple.

Thirdly, I did not deny that White was shown things from Yah, as were other individuals like Spurgeon, but her fidelity to that inspiration was below perfection, as was Spurgeon’s.

Finally, and most significant, the institution of the SDA's is riding the two-horned beast by incorporation as seeking its aid to enforce its trademark name. Consequently, I see nothing in the contemporary institution that would warrant continued fellowship; it has left the foundation and become like so many other denominations, the Sabbath issue notwithstanding.

Michael

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Come on! Do you really think it's in his best interest to openly entertain all the issues discussed here, all at once? Each of us must go through our own learning process. Pushing too much is counter productive. We all have our comfort zone outside of which we panic. There are many circles where everyone on this forum would pull in and defend.

Well if he would accept that he did actually receive an answer rather than claiming he did not receive an answer it would be easier to allow him time to digest material at his own speed. Is it in his interest to entertain all the issues in this thread? Yes it is rather like learning on your algebra test that you don't know enough to pass the final test. There is reality in the world and those who don't acknowledge the reality don't add much to society.

Of course in this case I don't like someone who lives in a fantasy world telling me in effect that I am lying to him when I say I answered his question. So I admit this is a little more personal.

 

[NightEternal]

Secondly, the popery thing will always enter into it when individuals like you hold those quotes up that state that any who reject the Testimones of EGW are "not right"! That is popery, plain and simple.

Give that man a cee-gar!

 

[NightEternal]

Ok it is not pretending you simply are ignoring the issues.

so lets vote on that. Who thinks MVA is ignoring the issues in this thread?

One vote for 'yay' here.

Like I said, he has elevated it to a science.

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=41818836&postcount=32

 

[NightEternal]

Well, it looks like the Trads are contentedly pacifying themselves with the soother of thier alternate, spin-doctored explanation of the 'amalgamation' statement.

http://christianforums.com/t6617742-the-amalgamation-statement.html

They don't have a clue that even some SDA ministers know very well what she meant by it.

Anything to keep the 'infallible prophetess' dream alive I guess.

 

[Sophia7]

Well, it looks like the Trads are contentedly pacifying themselves with the soother of thier alternate, spin-doctored explanation of the 'amalgamation' statement.

http://christianforums.com/t6617742-the-amalgamation-statement.html

They don't have a clue that even some SDA ministers know very well what she meant by it.

Anything to keep the 'infallible prophetess' dream alive I guess.

I saw this in that thread:

Also--about 10 yrs ago--I was a a church members home for our regular Friday evening bible studies, when this topic came up. All that read her statement came to the same conclusion--she was NOT referring to man procreating WITH animals; but as this article states.

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=41825719&postcount=2

Were they reading Ellen White for a "Bible study"?

 

[Avonia]

Well if he would accept that he did actually receive an answer rather than claiming he did not receive an answer it would be easier to allow him time to digest material at his own speed. Is it in his interest to entertain all the issues in this thread? Yes it is rather like learning on your algebra test that you don't know enough to pass the final test. There is reality in the world and those who don't acknowledge the reality don't add much to society.

Of course in this case I don't like someone who lives in a fantasy world telling me in effect that I am lying to him when I say I answered his question. So I admit this is a little more personal.

Fair enough!

 

[mva1985]

First, it is more than just opinion that EGW did not receive the same gift of prophecy as the authors of both Testaments. Period.

In your opinion.

Secondly, the popery thing will always enter into it when individuals like you hold those quotes up that state that any who reject the Testimones of EGW are "not right"! That is popery, plain and simple.

I did not write it she did. So your problem is with her not me.

Thirdly, I did not deny that White was shown things from Yah, as were other individuals like Spurgeon, but her fidelity to that inspiration was below perfection, as was Spurgeon’s.

Keep comparing her to Spurgeon if that makes you feel better.

Finally, and most significant, the institution of the SDA's is riding the two-horned beast by incorporation as seeking its aid to enforce its trademark name. Consequently, I see nothing in the contemporary institution that would warrant continued fellowship; it has left the foundation and become like so many other denominations, the Sabbath issue notwithstanding.

Michael

So do you think the church should not take advantage of the tax exempt status?

 

[NightEternal]

Mmmmmmm, eating crow. Always tastes good, don't it?

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=41838876&postcount=7

Want some mustard with that Trads?

Might as well forget it RC. They will deny your evidence and cling to the sinking ship right until it hits the bottom of the ocean.

It would almost be funny if it weren't so sad. The question of what she meant was settled years ago by men more qualified than us and yet they still hang desperately to thier weak explanation.

 

[mva1985]

Regardless of what is written about me here, and whether you believe it or not I do check out things that are written here.

For example, Night quoted some website that put forward the idea that even EGW wrote that the tower of Babel was built before the flood. So I go and check it out and of course it is not true. I did not take the time to respond someone else did.

So for those of you here that think I am afraid to think for myself or come to my own conclusions - well you are just plain wrong. You continue to say that I am just spouting the traditional viewpoints. Well, for the most part I believe in the traditional viewpoints.

I am what I like to call a "double-checker." It irritates some people, but I have no problem when it comes to double checking facts and figures or doctrine for that matter.

 

[NightEternal]

Just as an FYI-I did not post the Mormon connection links as irrefutable fact. If I that was my intention, I would have said as much in my post.

Rather, I posted them as a springboard for discussion, asking if anyone had heard about the Smith/White connection. I WAS ASKING A QUESTION because I have no definitive answers on the matter. It's the first time I was made aware of the matter.

So, the point of the links was to have reference sources to analyze and discuss, not as material that I am contending is absolute truth, which I was obviously (should have been obvious anyhow) not.

Read it for yourself and you decide.

 

[mva1985]

Just as an FYI-I did not post the Mormon connection links as irrefutable fact. If I that was my intention, I would have said as much in my post.

Rather, I posted them as a springboard for discussion, asking if anyone had heard about the Smith/White connection. I WAS ASKING A QUESTION because I have no definitive answers on the matter. It's the first time I was made aware of the matter.

So, the point of the links was to have reference sources to analyze and discuss, not as material that I am contending is absolute truth, which I was obviously (should have been obvious anyhow) not.

Read it for yourself and you decide.

I never said that you were posting them as irrefutable, but I did look at it none the less.

 

[NightEternal]

Wow, did I call that one or what?

Might as well forget it RC. They will deny your evidence and cling to the sinking ship right until it hits the bottom of the ocean.

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=41839348&postcount=129

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=41839935&postcount=8

DEE-NY-ALL!!

 

[mva1985]

Wow, did I call that one or what?

Might as well forget it RC. They will deny your evidence and cling to the sinking ship right until it hits the bottom of the ocean.

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=41839348&postcount=129

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=41839935&postcount=8

DEE-NY-ALL!!

And you read the whole thing?

 

[NightEternal]

Face it MVA. She meant man and beast. It is common knowledge amongst informed SDA's and has been for many years. It was the understanding of the 1800's to explain why certain races looked different than European whites.

But you and Honor are welcome to keep sailing down Denial River. I'm just trying to save you guys some embarassment when you actually try to pass off that silly 'scientific cross-breeding' explanation to those in the church who know better. Furthermore, there is no evidence whatsoever to prove that the antideluvians had any such capabilities. This based on nothing more than EGW's claim that they were as superiorly advanced in the sciences as we are today, even moreso, able to even clone sheep if they wanted to.

The 'cross-breeding' explanation was recently concocted as a last ditch, desperate attempt on the part of the apologists to save face on yet another one of her outrageous claims. You guys swallowed it hook line and sinker. Uriah Smith knew exactly what she was talking about and neither Ellen or James corrected him. Indeed, they heartily endorsed it and backed his claims.

Don't say you have not been duly warned by both Free and myself:

How could 'human to human' relationships be considered 'base crimes'?

How could sexual relations between married human beings be considered 'base crimes'?

How could 'beast to beast' relationships be considered 'base crimes'?

EGW used the 'base crime' phrase in only one other instance, and it was to describe Potiphar's wife's advances on Joseph.

How could 'beast to beast' relationships 'deface the image of God'?

Why did Uriah Smith, in an attempt to defend EGW's statements, say that her amalgamation statements referred to "such cases as the wild Bushmen of Africa, some tribes of the Hottentots, and perhaps the Digger Indians of our own country"?

If this is NOT what EGW meant, then where did she make the correction? Instead the Whites promoted Smith's publication at campmeetings!!!

Sometimes the desire to be right blinds one from the truth!

In Christ alone...

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=41811035&postcount=91

While I do take some pleasure in manking Honor look ignorant, I do not necessarily desire that for you.

 

[mva1985]

Face it MVA. She meant man and beast. It is common knowledge amongst informed SDA's and has been for the last 50 years. It was the understanding of the 1800's to explain why certain races looked different than European whites.

But you and Honor are welcome to keep sailing down Denial River. I'm just trying to save you guys some embarassment when you actually try to pass off that silly 'scientific cross-breeding' explanation to those in the church who know better.

That explanation was recently concocted as a last ditch, desperate attempt on the part of the apologists to save face on yet another one of her outrageous claims. You guys swallowed it hook line and sinker. Uriah Smith knew exactly what she was talking about and neither Ellen or James corrected him. Indeed, they heartily endorsed it and backed his claims.

Don't say you have not been duly warned by both Free and myself:

How could 'human to human' relationships be considered 'base crimes'?

How could sexual relations between married human beings be considered 'base crimes'?

How could 'beast to beast' relationships be considered 'base crimes'?

EGW used the 'base crime' phrase in only one other instance, and it was to describe Potiphar's wife's advances on Joseph.

How could 'beast to beast' relationships 'deface the image of God'?

Why did Uriah Smith, in an attempt to defend EGW's statements, say that her amalgamation statements referred to "such cases as the wild Bushmen of Africa, some tribes of the Hottentots, and perhaps the Digger Indians of our own country"?

If this is NOT what EGW meant, then where did she make the correction? Instead the Whites promoted Smith's publication at campmeetings!!!

Sometimes the desire to be right blinds one from the truth!

In Christ alone...

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=41811035&postcount=91

While I do take some pleasure in manking Honor look ignorant, I do not necessarily desire that for you.

Okay Night I have been duly warned. Thank you. You will not be held responsible for my eternal damnation. You are off the hook. When you are looking at me through the gates of the New Jerusalem and I am in that mighty throng trying to attack the City you will not need to weep for me because you have done all that you can.

Again thanks.

 

[mva1985]

I see that I caught your post in the middle of an edit.

FreeIndeed is on a completely different level.

 

[NightEternal]

Okay Night I have been duly warned. Thank you. You will not be held responsible for my eternal damnation. You are off the hook. When you are looking at me through the gates of the New Jerusalem and I am in that mighty throng trying to attack the City you will not need to weep for me because you have done all that you can.

Again thanks.

What in the world is this all about?

I meant 'warned' in the sense that I am alerting you to the fact that you might face some ridicule from those in the church who know better if you proffer this 'cross-breeding' theory. There was nothing within a country mile in reference to salvation!

Sheesh.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Regardless of what is written about me here, and whether you believe it or not I do check out things that are written here.

For example, Night quoted some website that put forward the idea that even EGW wrote that the tower of Babel was built before the flood. So I go and check it out and of course it is not true. I did not take the time to respond someone else did.

So for those of you here that think I am afraid to think for myself or come to my own conclusions - well you are just plain wrong. You continue to say that I am just spouting the traditional viewpoints. Well, for the most part I believe in the traditional viewpoints.

I am what I like to call a "double-checker." It irritates some people, but I have no problem when it comes to double checking facts and figures or doctrine for that matter.

How can you claim it is not true. It is one of the points that Uriah Smith wrote about in his defense of EGW's vision. His explaination is that a couple of words were missing.

OBJECTION 40. - BABEL BEFORE THE FLOOD.
URS VISIONS THE VISIONS: OBJECTIONS ANSWERED page 0105 paragraph 1 A point occurs on p. 301 of Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 3, concerning which several good brethren have written, not as the objector, to find fault and pick flaws, but for information. The language is concerning the system of sacrificial offerings which was established with Adam after the fall, and reads as follows: "This system was corrupted before the flood by those who separated themselves from the faithful followers of God and engaged in the building of the tower of Babel." An unfortunate typographical error which has crept in here, makes the language place the building of the tower of Babel before the flood. After the word "flood," a comma and the word "and," have been left out. It should read thus: "This system was corrupted before the flood, and by those who separated themselves from the faithful followers of God, and engaged in the building of the tower of Babel [after the flood, of course, understood]. It is a statement simply, that both before and after the flood, the system of sacrifices was corrupted by mankind.

You will notice that the official Ellen White site does not rewrite it as Uriah Smith did.

{3SG 301.3} The Lord first established the system of sacrificial offerings with Adam after his fall, which he taught to his descendants. This system was corrupted before the flood by those who separated themselves from the faithful followers of God, and engaged in the building of the tower of Babel. They sacrificed to gods of their own [making] instead of the God of Heaven.

http://egwdatabase.whiteestate.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates$fn=default.htm$vid=default

You said you read only 20 of the pdf slides on the amalgamation PDF yet you declared it a waste of time. You don't double check you assume and deny. And I can't see how anyone would find that as being responsible.
that article found at
http://www.forthegospel.org/files/Amalgamation_of_Man_and_Beast.pdf

 

[Mankin]

Night just stop trying. These people will never stop altering the questions or putting up haphazard arguments. Ugh.