Did God give Miller a false message on purpose?

[OntheDL]

Interesting. Compare these two quotes:

God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; (Hebrews 1:1-2, KJV)
_____________________________________________________

In ancient times God spoke to men by the mouth of prophets and apostles. In these days he speaks to them by the testimonies of his Spirit. There was never a time when God more earnestly instructed his people concerning his will, and the course that he would have them pursue, than now. But will they profit by his teachings? will they receive his reproofs and heed the warnings? God will accept of no partial obedience; he will sanction no compromise with self. {RH, June 9, 1885 par. 10}
​

Guess what the writer of Hebrews was referring to? The days when Jesus was on this earth.

Who did Jesus say will be sent in His absence? The holy spirit. How does the holy spirit speak to us? One way is through the prophets that it inspires.

Are you saying there won't any prophets in the last days?

Compare with these verses with what Ellen White wrote.

Joel 2:28 And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions.


Acts 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:


"In ancient times God spoke to men by the mouth of prophets and apostles. In these days he speaks to them by the testimonies of his Spirit. There was never a time when God more earnestly instructed his people concerning his will, and the course that he would have them pursue, than now. But will they profit by his teachings? will they receive his reproofs and heed the warnings? God will accept of no partial obedience; he will sanction no compromise with self." {RH, June 9, 1885 par. 10}

If your new church does not have a prophet, you should find one that does.

 

[OntheDL]

You didn't address the reason that I posted those quotes. Freeindeed wasn't misrepresenting Adventism. Those quotes from denominational publications say, among other things, that EGW was an "infallible interpreter" of the Bible (in fact, the only infallible interpreter), that Adventist doctrines are based on "the Bible supported by the writings of Ellen White," and that "His appointed channel" should be unquestionably accepted and acted upon.

I don't care what any man writes. I haven't even read those articles. As far as I know none of them claimed inspiration. Therefore I don't need to defend or explain what they might or might not have said.

 

[OntheDL]

Catholicism says;

Prior to the Resurrection Judaism was the "only" true religion and subsequent to the Resurrection of Jesus Christianity was the "only" true religion.

Jesus commissioned the Apostles to preach the Gospel and make diciple's of all nations. As quesitons rose as to what was to be believed or practiced the Church authoritatively laid down the law (Acts 15). Because the Church is united with the Holy Spirit when the Church speaks on matters of Faith or Morals it's in reality the Holy Spirit speaking through it.

Ellen has attempted to tie into this Catholic teaching that Biblically instructs believers to accept what Church authority tells them. Ellen claims she had been given 'special' instruction as to correct Dogma, thus confirming the correct Dogma.

I'm telling you from a Catholic perspective this is exactly what she did.

I can assure you when she wrote the testimonies, she didn't have the Catholic perspectives in mind.

The church or man's authority rests upon its harmony with the Word of God. No man and no church can claim to have it without passing the test.

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

 

[Pythons]

I can assure you when she wrote the testimonies, she didn't have the Catholic perspectives in mind.

If she modeled the authority for establishing correct doctrine via the Holy Spirit via her then I can assure you that she most certainly did.

The church or man's authority rests upon its harmony with the Word of God. No man and no church can claim to have it without passing the test.

That's the issue, isn't, "man's" interpretation! What kind of authority would it take for the Church in Acts 15 to say they AND the Holy Spirit determined to "bind" or not bind?

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

100 % agreed on that!

 

[tall73]

The topic of this thread is specific. It is not the daily, it is not the historic's view of the sanctuary, it is not whether you can call Ellen by her first name, and it is not whether my wife and I understood the sanctuary message before. This topic is about Miller's 1843 message and Ellen's comments on it. Everyone please stick to the topic. Side topics may be directed to another thread.


A brief review:

Jesus did not come in 1843.

Miller's message included date setting for 1843.

Date setting goes against Jesus instruction that you do not know at what hour your Lord will come.

Ellen condemned people for rejecting Miller's un-biblical date setting message.

 

[VictorC]

The topic of this thread is specific. It is not the daily, it is not the historic's view of the sanctuary, it is not whether you can call Ellen by her first name, and it is not whether my wife and I understood the sanctuary message before. This topic is about Miller's 1843 message and Ellen's comments on it. Everyone please stick to the topic. Side topics may be directed to another thread.

Tall, I know this is a source of continual frustration for you, but it is simply the nature of the threads that once something inspires a thought, that thought leads to another and another. For reasons I don't even remember, I hopped on board to point out that Ellen White was the source for many of the fundamental beliefs. I selected the phrase "law of love" that appears in fundamental #10, and that single observation has mushroomed to the point that no one as actually provided an answer to it. OntheDL has attempted to reason it out, but isn't willing to concede this citation doesn't exist in Scripture.

Tangents are a nature of the forums. We aren't a disciplined group of academics in this gathering. Sometimes the tangents are worth pursuing.

A brief review:

Jesus did not come in 1843.

This should be obvious to all, as well as for the revised date in 1844.

Miller's message included date setting for 1843.

Date setting goes against Jesus instruction that you do not know at what hour your Lord will come.

And as confirmation, Jesus explained prophecies to us in terms of events that follow a sequence. When this happens, then that happens, and so forth. Prophecy is portayed as a certain time from some observed event until that event concludes. Reducing prophetic statements into sloppy mathematical calculations hasn't served anyone well.
William Miller realized after the fact that this was the case regarding his own effort. His appeal to a path consisting of integrity caused him to discard his 1843/44 message and 2/3 of the Advent Movement returned to whatever former fellowship they came from.

Another 1/3 insisted that 1844 was valid, and we know them as the posterity of the Little Flock.

Ellen condemned people for rejecting Miller's un-biblical date setting message.

That will go down as today's understatement.
Ellen wrote this in the 1858 draft that became the Great Controversy:

God suffered him to come under the power of Satan, and death to have dominion over him. He hid him in the grave, away from those who were constantly drawing him from God. Moses erred just as he was about to enter the promised land. So also, I saw that Wm. Miller erred as he was soon to enter the heavenly Canaan, in suffering his influence to go against the truth. Others led him to this. Others must account for it. But angels watch the precious dust of this servant of God, and he will come forth at the sound of the last trump.

Ellen's "inspiration" leaves something to be desired.

Moses was denied entrance long before he was to enter into the promised land, and it was for a grave error regarding the single time the rock was to be struck:

Numbers 20:10-12
10 And Moses and Aaron gathered the congregation together before the rock, and he said unto them, Hear now, ye rebels; must we fetch you water out of this rock?
11 And Moses lifted up his hand, and with his rod he smote the rock twice: and the water came out abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their beasts also.
12 And the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron, Because ye believed me not, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them.

Moses himself testified later about the significance of his action:

Deuteronomy 32:1-4
1 ¶ Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak; and hear, O earth, the words of my mouth.
2 My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass:
3 Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God.
4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

There was to be only one time Jesus was to be wounded for our transgressions - not twice:
Isaiah 53:5
But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

And as a result of this sacrifice He made, there was to be one time that Jesus would offer Himself in the sanctuary in heaven:

Hebrews 9:15
And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

In an effort to retain 1843/44 as a valid date via reassignment to another secret chamber (Matthew 24:26) where His alleged actions couldn't be verified, Ellen White made the same type of error that Moses made when he struck the rock twice.

Moses didn't make it into the promised land.
What makes anyone think Ellen is going to?

Sorry I was so long winded, Tall.
Just as a thread contains inspiring thought that build onto others, I hope my little tangent will inspire more thought.

Victor

 

[VictorC]

I know you once attended SDA church. But obviously you have gone to the other side.

I have read Sophia's comments on our other forum, and I have been impressed with her knowledge of the Adventist 'distinctives', and even more impressed with her testimony of her (and her hubbie's) desire to follow Jesus and maintain her integrity before God.

The Body of Christ transcends mere denominations; He is not divided (1 Corinthians 4:15).
Your comment about the "other side" sounds like you're Darth Vader.
The 'distinctives' have apparently divided you apart from His body.

Victor

 

[tall73]

Tangents are a nature of the forums. We aren't a disciplined group of academics in this gathering. Sometimes the tangents are worth pursuing.

Yes, sometimes they are worth pursuing. However, tangents here have a way of derailing. For instance there was a trend for a while there that nearly every thread would turn to a discussion of whether grace meant that one could sin with seeming impunity, regardless of whether that was the thread topic. I would like this topic to stay on track

If you have an important tangent please quote the appropriate material and start a new thread. I think for instance the wife was contemplating starting a thread on the quotes regarding EGW's writings. Or you could start one on the proper form of address for Ellen, etc.

I don't have an issue with thoughts that have a bearing on 1843 and Miller that were not included earlier. I just don't think whether Ellen's first name should be used, etc. is something that really applies to this topic.

 

[tall73]

Tall, I know this is a source of continual frustration for you, but it is simply the nature of the threads that once something inspires a thought, that thought leads to another and another. For reasons I don't even remember, I hopped on board to point out that Ellen White was the source for many of the fundamental beliefs. I selected the phrase "law of love" that appears in fundamental #10, and that single observation has mushroomed to the point that no one as actually provided an answer to it. OntheDL has attempted to reason it out, but isn't willing to concede this citation doesn't exist in Scripture.

Tangents are a nature of the forums. We aren't a disciplined group of academics in this gathering. Sometimes the tangents are worth pursuing.


This should be obvious to all, as well as for the revised date in 1844.


And as confirmation, Jesus explained prophecies to us in terms of events that follow a sequence. When this happens, then that happens, and so forth. Prophecy is portayed as a certain time from some observed event until that event concludes. Reducing prophetic statements into sloppy mathematical calculations hasn't served anyone well.
William Miller realized after the fact that this was the case regarding his own effort. His appeal to a path consisting of integrity caused him to discard his 1843/44 message and 2/3 of the Advent Movement returned to whatever former fellowship they came from.

Another 1/3 insisted that 1844 was valid, and we know them as the posterity of the Little Flock.


That will go down as today's understatement.
Ellen wrote this in the 1858 draft that became the Great Controversy:

Ellen's "inspiration" leaves something to be desired.

Moses was denied entrance long before he was to enter into the promised land, and it was for a grave error regarding the single time the rock was to be struck:

Numbers 20:10-12
10 And Moses and Aaron gathered the congregation together before the rock, and he said unto them, Hear now, ye rebels; must we fetch you water out of this rock?
11 And Moses lifted up his hand, and with his rod he smote the rock twice: and the water came out abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their beasts also.
12 And the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron, Because ye believed me not, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them.

Moses himself testified later about the significance of his action:

Deuteronomy 32:1-4
1 ¶ Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak; and hear, O earth, the words of my mouth.
2 My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass:
3 Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God.
4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

There was to be only one time Jesus was to be wounded for our transgressions - not twice:
Isaiah 53:5
But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

And as a result of this sacrifice He made, there was to be one time that Jesus would offer Himself in the sanctuary in heaven:

Hebrews 9:15
And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

In an effort to retain 1843/44 as a valid date via reassignment to another secret chamber (Matthew 24:26) where His alleged actions couldn't be verified, Ellen White made the same type of error that Moses made when he struck the rock twice.

Moses didn't make it into the promised land.
What makes anyone think Ellen is going to?

Sorry I was so long winded, Tall.
Just as a thread contains inspiring thought that build onto others, I hope my little tangent will inspire more thought.

Victor

Yes, it seems evident that Miller erred for all the years leading up to 1844 and finally got it RIGHT near his death.

 

[Jimlarmore]

Date setting was indeed part of the message of 1844 but was it the main thrust of it? I don't think so. The main thrust of the message of 1844 was salvatory, IOW accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Savior and getting ready for the second advent.

Just as the discples had it all wrong concerning the time of Christ setting up His kingdom on earth even right up to His ascension, Miller was wrong in his assessement of what Nazdaq or cleansing/setting right of the sanctuary meant in Dan 8:14. Was God intentionally allowing both sets of beliefs to be wrong at these two separate times? Yes I think He did just that. I think He allowed both of them to show a few important things.

1. The disappointments fulfilled Biblical prophecy

2. The disappointments meant we need to dig deeper into God's word for more truth. When Christ walked with the disappionted disciple on the road to Emaus He did exactly that,,, He opened the scriptures to them and at the end of the journey they fully understood.

3. These disappointments showed that present/applicable truth is given in stages that can be handled at the time and not all at once.

4. Disappointements of this nature are like the refiner's fires which seperate the faithful from the fair weather Christians.

Instead of looking for what was wrong with Miller's message maybe we need to see what was right with it.

Primarily, Miller's message announcned to the world that the second advent was at hand. That message continues today. Shortly, thereafter the group who survived the disappointment accepted the 7th day Sabbath truth and eventually all of the truths we hold from the Bible including the 3 angels message of Revelation.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[tall73]

Date setting was indeed part of the message of 1844 but was it the main thrust of it? I don't think so. The main thrust of the message of 1844 was salvatory, IOW accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Savior and getting ready for the second advent.

Once again you are missing the point. Those who rejected it based on the biblical admonition against date setting were condemned by Ellen White who was rightly rebuked for her and Miller's date setting.

Notice a contemporary of Miller, Pastor Dowling, a Baptist pastor writing in 1840:


I cannot but suppose that Mr. M. is a pious, well-meaning man. I would advise him, in conclusion, if he would escape the distress I know it would cause him in his old age to have been unintentionally instrumental in the spread of infidelity, to go home and preach Christ crucified to perishing sinners, which I have no doubt he is qualified to do, and to waste no more of a life which might be valuable if rightly spent, in vainly attempting to make known those times and seasons which God hath wisely concealed from the ken of mortals, and "put into His own power."

Here is a man who was just fine with the message of repentance but who objected to the preaching of time. Yet Ellen said that those who rejected Miller's message didn't love Jesus. So this man who was

a. Right
b. Believed in preaching to sinners, but not preaching of time

didn't love Jesus and was condemned for not believing Miller's false date?

That makes no sense at all.

Just as the discples had it all wrong concerning the time of Christ setting up His kingdom on earth even right up to His ascension, Miller was wrong in his assessement of what Nazdaq or cleansing/setting right of the sanctuary meant in Dan 8:14. Was God intentionally allowing both sets of beliefs to be wrong at these two separate times? Yes I think He did just that. I think He allowed both of them to show a few important things.

1. The disappointments fulfilled Biblical prophecy

2. The disappointments meant we need to dig deeper into God's word for more truth. When Christ walked with the disappionted disciple on the road to Emaus He did exactly that,,, He opened the scriptures to them and at the end of the journey they fully understood.

3. These disappointments showed that present/applicable truth is given in stages that can be handled at the time and not all at once.

4. Disappointements of this nature are like the refiner's fires which seperate the faithful from the fair weather Christians.

Instead of looking for what was wrong with Miller's message maybe we need to see what was right with it.

Primarily, Miller's message announcned to the world that the second advent was at hand. That message continues today. Shortly, thereafter the group who survived the disappointment accepted the 7th day Sabbath truth and eventually all of the truths we hold from the Bible including the 3 angels message of Revelation.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

Ellen said God was behind Miller's message INCLUDING the time. It was not a human error, but God's doing. as a test. For the disciples' experience to be the same you would have to show that

a. God intentionally gave them the wrong message.
b. People rejected their message on the basis of better understanding, but were condemned for it.

Then it would be the same as Millers. But of course that didn't happen.

Here are a number of statements where Ellen says that God designed this false time-setting message from Early Writings:


I saw that God was in the proclamation of the time in 1843. It was His design to arouse the people and bring them to a testing point, where they should decide for or against the truth.

I saw the people of God joyful in expectation, looking for their Lord. But God designed to prove them. His hand covered a mistake in the reckoning of the prophetic periods.

God designed that His people should meet with a disappointment. 236


I saw the wisdom of God in proving His people and giving them a searching test to discover those who would shrink and turn back in the hour of trial. {EW 235.3}


Those who had neglected to receive the heavenly message were left in darkness, and God's anger was kindled against them, because they would not receive the light which He had sent them from heaven.



God designed.

God calculated

God covered a mistake

God designed that they should meet with disappointment

God gave them a searching test.

God had wisdom in testing His people.

God was in the proclamation of the time in 1843

It was His desire to arouse the people and bring them to a testing point.

She calls Miller's message a heavenly message.


So we see that Ellen blames God for them setting a time which the Bible controverts. And then they condemned those who had given them the warning that they should not set time, though they were right.

On the other hand Jesus warned His disciples of His death, He told them before it He would be leaving to go to the Father, etc. So Jesus was not the one deceiving them.

 

[NightEternal]

This has been a fascinating thread to follow. Watching the Trads trying to weasel and squirm thier way out of this one is a wonder to behold. Truly thier mental and verbal gymnastics knows no bounds in thier attempts to justify the inexcusable and defend the indefensible. It's like watching a theological Cirque Du Soleil.

Twist, contort, spin whatever it takes! The infallible prophetess dream must be kept alive no matter what the cost. No matter WHAT. They just clutch the EGW towel with white knuckles and refuse to throw it in already.

She was WRONG.

She ERRED.

She WRONGLY REBUKED AND CONDEMNED MINISTERS WHO WERE RIGHT.

She CONTRADICTED A CLEAR ADMONISHMENT OF SCRIPTURE.

She DROPPED THE BALL.

She BUNGLED AND BLEW IT.

Is it so hard to just admit and move on?

Apparently so.

 

[djconklin]

Whatever

 

[djconklin]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimlarmore
Date setting was indeed part of the message of 1844 but was it the main thrust of it? I don't think so. The main thrust of the message of 1844 was salvatory, IOW accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Savior and getting ready for the second advent.


Once again you are missing the point. Those who rejected it based on the biblical admonition against date setting were condemned by Ellen White who was rightly rebuked for her and Miller's date setting.

1) I doubt that those who objected to William Miller's (and the other 2,000 thousand preachers who are conventiently forgotten) preaching on the soon coming of Jesus even knew of Ellen White.

2) While you can cite a single individual who seems to be against date-setting, this is really a subsidiaray argument that William Miller and the others were making. What those Protestant preachers, across denominational lines, and Catholic priests were doing was showing that the prophecies of Daniel pointed to 1843/4.

 

[tall73]

1) I doubt that those who objected to William Miller's (and the other 2,000 thousand preachers who are conventiently forgotten) preaching on the soon coming of Jesus even knew of Ellen White.

a. Miller didn't just preach Jesus' soon coming but added to it false time-setting. .

b. Her blaming the false message on God and condemning those who rightly rebuked her doesn't require them to know her. It just shows the lengths she would go to in order to uphold Miller, who she needed for her message to be a continuation of a prophetic movement.

2) While you can cite a single individual who seems to be against date-setting, this is really a subsidiaray argument that William Miller and the others were making. What those Protestant preachers, across denominational lines, and Catholic priests were doing was showing that the prophecies of Daniel pointed to 1843/4.

Above you said they were preaching about Jesus' coming. Now you say it was all about the prophecies.

But Ellen said God was in the preaching of the time.

Miller used the prophecies to preach a false date-setting message which Ellen, etc. bought into, even to the point of eventually picking one day. This totally violates scriptures. But rather than admitting fault she said it was God's doing.

 

[Pythons]

While you can cite a single individual who seems to be against date-setting, this is really a subsidiaray argument that William Miller and the others were making. What those Protestant preachers, across denominational lines, and Catholic priests were doing was showing that the prophecies of Daniel pointed to 1843/4.

Christ was certainly against date setting, so now you have two individuals who were against it.

What were the Catholic Priests doing that pointed to "the prophecies of Daniel"?


Here is the simple break-down

"If we claim we have not sinned, we make Him out to be a liar and His word has no place in us our lives". 1 John 1,10

This is to say if we say we have not sinned or can keep from sinning we make Christ out to be a liar. Because Jesus also said that no man knows the day or the hour attempting to set a date also makes him out to be a liar.

 

[Jimlarmore]

a. Miller didn't just preach Jesus' soon coming but added to it false time-setting. .

b. Her blaming the false message on God and condemning those who rightly rebuked her doesn't require them to know her. It just shows the lengths she would go to in order to uphold Miller, who she needed for her message to be a continuation of a prophetic movement.

Above you said they were preaching about Jesus' coming. Now you say it was all about the prophecies.

But Ellen said God was in the preaching of the time.

Miller used the prophecies to preach a false date-setting message which Ellen, etc. bought into, even to the point of eventually picking one day. This totally violates scriptures. But rather than admitting fault she said it was God's doing.

If this event was prophecied to occurr then it took the setting of the date to create the disppointment. God in His wisdom knew this and allowed it to go down that way. Certainly the preaching of a second advent happeneing soon wouldn't be a novel idea at all. However, when you put a time for it to happen and associate that time with Biblical support? Now you have the all the ingredients of a great disappointment.

Tall says that Christ didn't tell the disciples things to make them believe a false belief. I have to differ from that assessement in that He said things that could be taken wrong and didn't always make it very clear that they were wrong.

For instance when Christ said that the kingdom of God was at hand anyone could have thought that would mean setting up a kingdom right then or really soon anyway ( See Mark 1:15 ). When Christ said , concerning the transfiguration, that some are living now who will see the glory of the Father, that could have been taken other than what happened. When Christ said this generation shall not pass away until all these things shall come to pass ( See Luke 21:31). That could have been taken as a message of the end times and the kingdom of God being set up.

The main thrust of this thread is to invalidate EGW and her writings as they relate to William Miller. William Miller was not the only one preaching this message and he was not the only one setting the date of 1844. The great disappointment was prophecied to happen which separated God's remnant movement from the rest of religions. The great disappointment that the disiples experienced made them dynamos and sparked the great beginning of the Christian era.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Of all the dates in history when people have predicted the second coming and this happened several times before the Millerites, how is it that God used this particular date as His test? Of course the only reason is because EGW said it was. Which goes back to the problem in the Adventist church which is that they have allowed EGW to be their interpreter of the Bible. As such nothing that disagrees with her view can be allowed. And we see the extreme methods used to justify those errors.

There is a great site on the subject of dates predicted: A Brief History of the ApocalypseThe early days: 2800 BC - 1700 AD

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]1701 - 1970: Modern Times

[/FONT]

 

[djconklin]

Originally Posted by djconklin
1) I doubt that those who objected to William Miller's (and the other 2,000 thousand preachers who are conventiently forgotten) preaching on the soon coming of Jesus even knew of Ellen White.

a. Miller didn't just preach Jesus' soon coming but added to it false time-setting.

The date was arrived at by looking at the prophicies fo Daniel, so that can hardly be false (and has not been proven to be false). What has been widely acknowledged is that they misunderstood what "cleansing of the sanctuary" meant and misattributed it to cleansing of the earth by fire with the second coming.
In any case your response didn't deal with my point.

b. Her blaming the false message on God and condemning those who rightly rebuked her doesn't require them to know her. It just shows the lengths she would go to in order to uphold Miller, who she needed for her message to be a continuation of a prophetic movement.

Assumes facts (which are unproveable) that aren't evidence.

2) While you can cite a single individual who seems to be against date-setting, this is really a subsidiaray argument that William Miller and the others were making. What those Protestant preachers, across denominational lines, and Catholic priests were doing was showing that the prophecies of Daniel pointed to 1843/4.

Above you said they were preaching about Jesus' coming. Now you say it was all about the prophecies.

I never said that "was all about the prophecies." As you had conceded above the preaching of Wm. Miller and others involved two major elements: time and the second coming.

But Ellen said God was in the preaching of the time.

Since He was the ultimate source of Daniel's time prophecies that would seem logical.

Miller used the prophecies to preach a false date-setting message which Ellen, etc. bought into, even to the point of eventually picking one day. This totally violates scriptures. But rather than admitting fault she said it was God's doing.

God was testing the people to see if they were accepting the basic messages--Christ is soon coming and the prophecies of Daniel or were they "hedging their bets" as it were. Most turned out to be doing the later.

 

[djconklin]

What were the Catholic Priests doing that pointed to "the prophecies of Daniel"?

Studying the Bible like the erst of Christendom. It was Catholics who developed preterism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism) and futurism. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation
===

Of all the dates in history when people have predicted the second coming and this happened several times before the Millerites, how is it that God used this particular date as His test? Of course the only reason is because EGW said it was.

No, this date was the test because it worked off the time prophecies of Daniel.

Which goes back to the problem in the Adventist church which is that they have allowed EGW to be their interpreter of the Bible.

Blatant misrepresentation of the EGW's relationship to the the SDA church. She pointedly and repeatedly pointed people to the Bible, not herself.