controversey with the great controversy

[Adventist Dissident]

I've seen the same thing done to scriptures by many critics, especially on www. iidb.org. The problem with them is they don't discrimenate between apocraphal writings and the canonized scripture. But even laying that aside you can find many critics who nit pick the actual Bible to pieces in so many areas that it makes you sick to read it. What you have done reminds me so much of that very acitivity. The recommended areas of concern in the 100 recommendations given were like that. Clearly, Nit picking. Given the exhaustive treatise for what you expect then I would say inspired writings are a farse and don't exist at all.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

This is a classic example of dodging the question. You have not cited one example of nit picking. Major facts of history are WRONG. For example Luthers motivation for entering the monostary. the GC says it was because he looked on the word of God and was convicted on the holiness of God and his need for a savior. Luthers own words tell us that he went in to the monostary because of the a promise made to ST Anne in a thunder storm. why the major difference and how is that inspired?

 

[Adventist Dissident]

I merely noted that tall73 and I have already discussed it. I didn't make any "claim" on him. If you are unwilling, or unable to read what we had to say on the subject that is your problem, not mine.

FIRST until this post I did not know you had had a prior discussion, It is not my responsiblity to look over your prior discussions. It is your responiblility to post information that counters my post.
Second here is an idea why don't you go and get you post and click and paste some of the answeres here. that is if they apply. it would save you the trouble of retyping. copy and paste is a wonderfuld tool.
Another thing you might try copy and paste on the books that you link. In stead of giving me an entire book to read, why don't you copy a paragraph or two and post it here, hey I WILL read a page or two if you post it here. add the link, if I feel it is worth persuing Then I will presue it further.

 

[truthmagnet]

Some question for EGW supporters"

1. In light of the Errors in the Great controversey, exactly how was it inspired?
2. In light of the errors ,How are we to take it as a spiritual authority?
3. do I quote the inaccurate parts as authoritiave and binding?
4. How exactly am I suppost to answer non believers questions about EGW's claim to inspration.
5. If a vision is inaccurate historically then was it God who messed up in showing or EGW in writing it down?
6. If it is EGW then how are we to gaguge her other writings? what standard are we to use to determine her truthfulness and trust worthiness?

Ellen White never said she was an authority nor did she say she was a prophet. In fact she told people not to call her a prophet but some people do it anyway. That's not her fault. I consider her" very good Bible counsel". Why must we pick her apart. I believe it is safe to say, she did more for the cause of God than any of us ever will. God gives us discernment to know what is trustworty and truth. If you read enough of Ellen White's writings it seems quite clear that she was inspired by God. Even I am imspired by God sometimes. I think I have said and written and done things that God inspired me to do. That doesn't mean that everything I say or write or do is inspired or prophetic. right? I think it is the devil's deception that makes people dwell on picking apart the tiniest things to take up our time from worship and studying, from giving and peacemaking. This is just my personal opinion but I think these time consuming non-activities keep us from actually doing what God wants us to be doing. If you are working so hard at finding a little inconsistency in the magnanimus amount of writings of Mrs. White then I think you have missed all the blessings in it. Just my opinion. Don't anyone go ballistic on me cuz that's all I have to say on the subject. Let's move on. God Bless.

 

[Jimlarmore]

This is a classic example of dodging the question. You have not cited one example of nit picking. Major facts of history are WRONG. For example Luthers motivation for entering the monostary. the GC says it was because he looked on the word of God and was convicted on the holiness of God and his need for a savior. Luthers own words tell us that he went in to the monostary because of the a promise made to ST Anne in a thunder storm. why the major difference and how is that inspired?

I'm going to make this one post on this then drop the discussion with you because like many ( myself included ) there is no end to the back and forth snibbling nature of your type of dialogue. IOW, no real learning is going on here just argueing. You say I am dodging the question but I see it as a slam dunk, plain as the nose on your face fact. Nearly everything you have cut and pasted is just nit picking her writings. The primary example you are asking me to give is nearly all of the voluminous diatribe you have cut and pasted on the first 3-4 pages of this thread. Nearly all of it is nit picking extrordinare and the things listed do not grossly show error on EG White's part or false teachings that stray from the Bible.

Example: close to the first one of the recommendations it stated that it was "around 500 years " before Christ's birth when the temple was built. The word around leaves room for lee-way so the plug or invalidation/put down comes in. This is nit picking. The response was negative from the White estate as it was for the majority of the recommendations because the issues raised was nit picking and any action they would take wouldn't change the over-all truth or impact of what she was trying to say in that part of the book.

You can accept or reject EG White's writings if you want based on nit picking or petty problems with what she wrote. Like I said before, Bible critics do the same thing to the Bible all the time. This is primarily the work of the enemy. Your frame of mind means everything when you read the Bible and your frame of mind is extremely important when you read EG White's writings. I choose to take the over-all theme of her writings. So be it if she made a few mistakes from time to time, all of us have and do!!!! I see her lifting up Jesus and the Bible and not taking much credit at all for what she contributed to this world. I know when I read her writings I come away feeling blessed by reading them. I feel closer to my creator and that is important as well.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Adventist Dissident]

"around 500 years " before Christ's birth when the temple was built. The word around leaves room for lee-way so the plug or invalidation/put down comes in.

hey you actually responded in an x-y format very good. you asnwer was ok. you picked an issue and told why it was wrong. I appreciat it. keep up the good work

 

[tall73]

What Prescott's changes do show is that, whatever the nature of EGW's inspiration, she is not to be used as an historical source. If her visions gave the overview, and she used historical works to fill in the details (as she mentions in the preface to the GC), then the facts referenced from these works are subject to change it would seem.

The key difference between the Prescott issue and the other was the direct involvement of Ellen White in the process, along with the estate.

She was mor than willing that corrections be made.

When I learned that The Great Controversy must be reset, I determined that we would have everything closely examined, to see if the truths it contained were stated in the very best manner, to convince those not of our faith that the Lord had guided and sustained me in the writing of its pages.-- EGW to FMW, July 25, 1911.

The issue seems to be that EGW was more concerned about the general thrust of history than the actual historical details.

 

[djconklin]

>Luthers motivation for entering the monostary. the GC says it was because he looked on the word of God and was convicted on the holiness of God and his need for a savior.

Where in GC is this to be found?

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Here it is



"The fear of the Lord dwelt in the heart of Luther, enabling him to maintain his steadfastness of purpose, and leading him to deep humility before God. He had an abiding sense of his dependence upon divine aid, and he did not fail to begin each day with prayer, while his heart was continually breathing a petition for guidance and support. "To pray well," he often said, "is the better half of study." {GC88 122

.1}

While one day examining the books in the library of the university, Luther discovered a Latin Bible. Such a book he had never before seen. He was ignorant even of its existence. He had heard portions of the Gospels and Epistles, which were read to the people at public worship, and he supposed that these were the entire Bible. Now, for the first time, he looked upon the whole of God's Word. With mingled awe and wonder he turned the sacred pages; with quickened pulse and throbbing heart he read for himself the words of life, pausing now and then to exclaim, "Oh, if God would give me such a book for my own!" Angels of Heaven were by his side, and rays of light from the throne of God revealed the treasures of truth to his understanding. He had ever feared to offend god, but now the deep conviction of his condition as a sinner took hold upon him as never before. {GC88 122

.2}

An earnest desire to be free from sin and to find peace with God, led him at last to enter a cloister, and devote
123
himself to a monastic life. Here he was required to perform the lowest drudgery, and to beg from house to house. He was at an age when respect and appreciation are most eagerly craved, and these menial offices were deeply mortifying to his natural feelings; but he patiently endured this humiliation, believing that it was necessary because of his sins." {GC88 122

.3}

 

[djconklin]

That passage says nothing about that being the reason Luther entered the monastery. That's what I am looking for. You seem to be assuming that since one paragraph follows another that the previous must be the explanation for what follows.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

That passage says nothing about that being the reason Luther entered the monastery. That's what I am looking for. You seem to be assuming that since one paragraph follows another that the previous must be the explanation for what follows.

You are on thin ice there, it's cracking and your're falling through. desire = motivation. There is nothing even mentioned about the thunder storm and his promise to St. Anne. Go back and read the highlighted portion.

 

[djconklin]

I didn't say that the thunder strom was mentioned. You have assumed that it had to be stated. Your desire has exposed your motivation; I had none.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

I didn't say that the thunder strom was mentioned. You have assumed that it had to be stated. Your desire has exposed your motivation; I had none.

I assumed nothing. I have no motivation. Ellen white admitted there were errors

 

[tall73]

If i could suggest something, the Luther angle is a harder one to prove due to the possibility of multiple factors. They did sound a bit different, but that doesn't rule out both being true.

However, since EGW and her estate admiitted to wrong facts in the Prescott incident, changing material to reflect the new facts, perhaps we could discuss the implications of that, rather than debate something that is not quite as clear.

 

[djconklin]

If i could suggest something, the Luther angle is a harder one to prove due to the possibility of multiple factors. They did sound a bit different, but that doesn't rule out both being true.

However, since EGW and her estate admiitted to wrong facts in the Prescott incident, changing material to reflect the new facts, perhaps we could discuss the implications of that, rather than debate something that is not quite as clear.

I would suggest that the reason it is not clear is because Ellen White is being twisted into saying something she did not say. It would be hard to have a logical discussion as long as some of the participants are going to continue reading in things into the discussion that aren't there.

 

[tall73]

I would suggest that the reason it is not clear is because Ellen White is being twisted into saying something she did not say. It would be hard to have a logical discussion as long as some of the participants are going to continue reading in things into the discussion that aren't there.

You want to tell me which some you have in mind?

Anyway, the Prescott issue is clear.

Anyone want to speak to what it means though?

 

[djconklin]

What needs to be dealt with in Prescott's suggestions? Seems to me that it has already been dealt with in the re-printing of GC.

 

[tall73]

What needs to be dealt with in Prescott's suggestions? Seems to me that it has already been dealt with in the re-printing of GC.

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

But apart from that, what needs to be dealt with is the nature of inspiration. If the GC is not an historical source of authority, is it an authority in other teaching?

 

[djconklin]

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

Where's the problem?

But apart from that, what needs to be dealt with is the nature of inspiration. If the GC is not an historical source of authority, is it an authority in other teaching?

The issue of revelation and inspiration is where the plagiarism subject gets interesting.

Why can't GC be a historical source within the context of its time? Or, why do we try to make it what is not?

 

[tall73]

Context of its time? Please elaborate. I have an idea of what you could mean, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

Where's the problem?



The issue of revelation and inspiration is where the plagiarism subject gets interesting.

Why can't GC be a historical source within the context of its time? Or, why do we try to make it what is not?

 

[djconklin]

By "context of its time" I'm thinking in terms of the knowledge they had at that time.

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?