- Sep 23, 2005
- 32,684
- 6,107
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Well that is not true at all. The reason is that the quotes makes sense as they are written when you add context and the definitions to race pre and post flood in. You do not seem to believe this though despite it already shown throughout this thread proving you wrong. You will not accept this though so this is why we agree to disagree.
Kind of find that one hard to believe. Why do you not seem to like discussing the scriptures with me especially if we talk about the law, sin and the Sabbath?
I never quote the SOP to you. The only thing you seem to want to talk about is SOP quotes and how wrong they are even when shown the contexts once provided do not agree with your interpretation of them. Anyhow each to their own.
Arr so I was right in posting what i wrote? Thank you for being honest.And of course, I think the way Adventists relate to Ellen White will make non-Adventists recoil from SDA teaching. And of course I disagree with Ellen White. And judging by the responses of non-Adventists in the thread they have been repulsed by the way Adventists use Ellen White. But that is just a reaction to the notion of using Ellen White to interpret the Bible.
Not really. Only those discussions where quotes are pulled from context to try and make them say things they were never saying once context is added back in.To you any discussion of Ellen White is misinformation. And in this case I posted her comments and the link to the context. You still said it is misinformation. But you won't fill in your definitions on the quote for fear people would see it made no sense.
Your response here...Well that is not true at all. The reason is that the quotes makes sense as they are written when you add context and the definitions to race pre and post flood in. You do not seem to believe this though despite it already shown throughout this thread proving you wrong. You will not accept this though so this is why we agree to disagree.
What do you think what you are quoting from was saying? Seems we are going around in circles again. Which is reminding me as to why I was leaving again.You won't put your definitions in because you know they don't make sense.
Arr so I was right in posting what i wrote? Thank you for being honest.
Not really. Only those discussions where quotes are pulled from context to try and make them say things they were never saying one context is added back in.
You do as you like. I have already proven how they make sense as they are (see post # 43; post # 46; post # 71; post # 83 and post # 167 linked).You won't put your definitions in because you know they don't make sense.
Seems we are going around in circles again. Which is reminding me as to why I was leaving again.
Your response here...LoveGodsWord wrote: Kind of find that one hard to believe. Why do you not seem to like discussing the scriptures with me especially if we talk about the law, sin and the Sabbath? I never quote the SOP to you. The only thing you seem to want to talk about is SOP quotes and how wrong they are even when shown the contexts once provided do not agree with your interpretation of them. Anyhow each to their own.
Yet you were the one who left that thread and still have catching up to do there? I am still waiting for you.I discussed them for many posts and offered to go through every text. I already posted that quote here, so folks know the truth of it.
You do as you like. I have already proven how they make sense as they are (see post # 43; post # 46; post # 71; post # 83 and post # 167 linked).
No. The reason I am leaving here is that the thread and your OP has already died and you have nothing more to add to the discussion. Definitions of race from wiki have already been provided way back in post # 43 as was the quote contexts. You do not seem to believe them though.You know why you are leaving. And you know why we are going in circles.
Because there is no race since the flood, that was around in Ellen White's time that didn't have unbelievers or intermarriage with unbelievers.
And so it couldn't just be "certain" races if we take your supplied definitions. And you won't even fill in the definitions because you know it would be obviously wrong.
Your response here...
Sure those linked posts do indeed address the OP by providing the contexts you left out and the definitions of race as used by the author. You just did not like the answer I guess as it kind of ends your OP discussion..They don't, and you won't answer the question of which races after the flood did not have amalgamation in Ellen White's time. Because by your definition it is impossible.
Your response here...
Yet you were the one who left that thread and still have catching up to do there? I am still waiting for you.
Your response here...
Sure those linked posts do indeed address the OP by providing the contexts you left out and the definitions of race as used by the author. You just did not like the answer I guess as it kind of ends your OP.
Once you refused to go through all the texts, and just wanted to talk about your favorites, there was no point.
Why? The quotes make perfect sense exactly aas they are written when you add context and the definitions to race pre and post flood. This is shown already in some detail (see post # 43; post # 46; post # 71; post # 83 and post # 167 linked). If you have nothing more new to add then your discussion is finished really isn't it?Then plug in your definitions. Every time I did you claimed they were wrong. If they are that hard to identify, and you won't fill them in yourself into the quote, then it is just because you don't want to make it clear.
None of them had it starting with Noah - his religion was a pure one. God called him righteous. It's what happens over time from that point on that is "cause and effect" yielding "the result". .
Why? The quotes make perfect sense as they are written when you add context and the definitions to race pre and post flood. This is shown already in some detail (see post # 43; post # 46; post # 71; post # 83 and post # 167 linked). If you have nothing more new to add then your discussion is finished really isn't it?
You won't plug in your definitions, and you claim I didn't get the right ones when I tried.
So you don't want your view known. It is fine. I don't need you to. You already demonstrated the point in this thread.
And Bob was much more forthcoming than you.
POST FLOOD APPLICATION TO RACE; populations of people' communities; Ethnic groups; common languages and physical traits.
Is this the summary definition you have presented (I don't care who wrote it), as your definition of race post-flood or not?
Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain populations of people' communities; Ethnic groups; common languages and physical traits of men. {3SG 75.2}
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?