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.
No the whole post is the summary (see post 258 linked). The quote from your OP is provided with contexts and word definitions to "race" pre and post-flood application as the quote is provided twice pre and post-flood right?
Not at all it is the definition of race while also providing the contexts you left out of your OP (see post 47 linked and see also post # 167 linked). The definitions are applied both pre and post-flood to context and as circumstances between the two periods changed. This was already explained in the linked posts. This is all repetition which is why I was leaving.So that whole long post discussing various views of race throughout history is your definition of race in the post-flood context? Yeah, that is just a way of obfuscating.
Not at all it is the definition of race while also providing the contexts you left out of your OP (see post 67 linked and see also post # 167 linked).
Not at all. There is no point in continuing our discussion as we are both in disagreement which was the reason I was leaving. I have posted both context and historical use and definition of "race" with application to both pre and post-flood which when applied to the two quotes pre and post flood make perfect sense to me and puts an end to your OP. Of course you are free to believe as you wish.Obfuscating.
You won't post a simple definition of race to put into the quote. Because then you would have to make sense of it.
But Uriah Smith knew what race meant.
Not at all. There is no point in continuing our discussion which was the reason I was leaving. I have posted both context and historical use and definition of "race" with application to both pre and post-flood which when applied to the two quotes pre and post flood make perfect sense to me and puts an end to your OP. Of course you are free to believe as you wish. Thanks again for the discussion.
Read the definitions of races already provided and it's historical use from Wiki (see post 47 linked and see also post # 167 linked) with the full context of the quotes you provided. Your trying to change the meaning of "race" into something it is not based on time periods pre and post-flood. When this is understood the quotes you provided make perfect sense.There are no races who have not had intermarriage or unbelievers. So your view makes zero sense. However, if you wish to keep bumping the thread up, feel free.
Still trying to twist the discussion into something else. Read the definitions of races already provided and it's historical use from Wiki? Your trying to change the meaning of "race" into something it is not.
It is pretty clear what race means. Uriah Smith knew it. I posted what Ellen White said. There is no mystery.
There is only the mystery of why you have developed a theology of defaced and non-defaced races to defend Ellen White.
Here you go. Wikipedia - Race You are wrong because your seeking to change the definitions to race pre and post-flood and leaving out the quote context of the quote you provided in the OP.
It seems you do need that Wikipedia article on the historical use and definition of "race" as you are misapplying definitions of "race" trying to narrow down definition to something it is not as outlined in the Wikipedia article from the quotes you provided in this OP from different time periods pre and post-flood.You don't need wikipedia's article on race to know how Ellen White uses it:
I know that if we attempt to meet the ideas and preferences of some of the colored people, we shall find our way blocked completely. The work of proclaiming the truth for this time is not to be hindered by an effort to adjust the position of the Negro race --9T 215
If you could only see amalgamation in CERTAIN races in Ellen White's time, then which races did not have intermarriage or unbelievers from the time of the flood to Ellen White's time?
.
LoveGodsWord said: ↑
Here you go. Wikipedia - Race You are wrong because your seeking to change the definitions
You don't need wikipedia's article on race to know how Ellen White uses it:
It is pretty clear what race means. Uriah Smith knew it.
It is pretty clear what race means. Uriah Smith knew it. I posted what Ellen White said. There is no mystery.
My point is that if you use Ellen White to decide biblical disputes, that is not letting the Bible be the test of doctrine.
Because she speaks to many things the Bible is not clear on, and you never disagree with her view.
BobRyan said: ↑
As all Bible scholars admit , there are a great many topics where the scholarship infers some detail based on clues from various Bible texts to come up with a detail not explicitly written in the Bible. This is not "NEW" to the world with Adventist views on those sorts of Bible details. In some cases we are left guessing with no more info than the next guy - and in a few cases we do have some added insight -- but in every case it is not a Bible doctrine.
You are possibly conflating sola-scriptura testing of all doctrine with solo-scriptura source, and in the examples you give "like authorship" you argue even more narrowly that even if evidence exists for Paul - unless the text outright says "I Paul am writing this letter" -- well then the Bible doesn't say it so it should not be believed or everyone should claim they are "just guessing" even if God sends them Word from heaven on the right answer..
Thank you for demonstrating for any who are following along that you put Ellen White on the same level as Scripture.
you use Ellen White to fill in gaps when you can't decide from the Bible.
That was my point all along. If you accept Ellen White there is no limiting factor. Inspired is inspired. So you can't say Scripture is what you judge things by.
Yes. However, I also kept reviewing each statement. And Adventists objected to that.
And I kept reviewing Adventist theology. And Adventists object to that as well.
More like if I wanted to look at the Bible for what it said I could not do so with people who only go by what Ellen White said.
And yet Bible scholars when faced with possibilities spell them out and weigh the evidence.
It is not how it is done in Adventism.
When the Bible is not clear you consult Ellen White.
1 John 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world
Agreed. And I am pointing out that once you accept her you will then have to apply any interpretation of the Bible that she gives.
Which means you are not in fact going just by the Bible to determine doctrine.
I was talking about levels of inspiration.
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?