Did God give Miller a false message on purpose?

[Jimlarmore]

Is anyone else having trouble posting on CF lately? So far I have had to re-post nearly every post twice to get it to go. I post it and it just goes bye bye into cyber land someplace but it's not on this thread. Just curious

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Jimlarmore]

This is my third attempt to respond on this thread. Something is wrong with the forum's programing I guess. Anyway, this is my last attempt today to post on this forum.

Your logic here has two problems:

1. What message did Miller actually give? He gave the message that Jesus was coming in 1843. People were tested, according to Ellen, on their reception of Miller's actual message, not the later Adventist revision.

It was specifically the time-setting that folks rejected. Why? Because the Bible says NOT to predict the timing of Jesus COMING. It was the part that involved Jesus coming that caused them to reject it in the first place. They were 100 percent right in rejecting the message that Jesus' coming could be set to a time.

Now if they were 100 percent right to reject that notion then why would God punish them for following what the Bible says?

There wasn't massive rejection of the misinterpreted message until after the fact. Many fully accepted the idea of Christ second advent even going so far as to sell property or empty bank accounts to get ready for it.

2. Ellen said God was behind the preaching of time in 1843. That was not even the right year.

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.

So BOTH elements of that message were wrong. Both the time and the event were wrong. There was nothing right about it. But Ellen says God was angry with those who rejected this false message.

God was fully behind the message and the timing of Dan 8:14 and it was fully right, not wrong. The belief that the cleansing was the second advent was what was wrong.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[djconklin]

2. Ellen said God was behind the preaching of time in 1843. That was not even the right year.

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.

So BOTH elements of that message were wrong. Both the time and the event were wrong. There was nothing right about it. But Ellen says God was angry with those who rejected this false message.

The timing clearly pointed to 1843/4. What should have been in question was whether or not the "cleansing of the sanctuary" meant the literal return of Christ. The operative assumption of the 2,000 Christian preachers across denominational lines in the Millerite movement was proven wrong. The test was do they go with what they knew was true or do they reject everything?

 

[freeindeed2]

The timing clearly pointed to 1843/4.

Have you read the ACTUAL 15 'proofs'??? As a self-claimed 'researcher' you should be able to recognize the falacy of the actual 'proofs' Miller presented. HAVE YOU READ THEM??? Conklin, find them and READ them! If you're honest you'll see it.

What should have been in question was whether or not the "cleansing of the sanctuary" meant the literal return of Christ.

You're skipping over the proofs you've assumed are accurate! You've made condclusions based on assumptions. 1843/44 is NOT proven! READ THE PROOFS!

The operative assumption of the 2,000 Christian preachers across denominational lines in the Millerite movement was proven wrong. The test was do they go with what they knew was true or do they reject everything?

Check the ACTUAL 15 'proofs'! That will explain a lot for you if you're willing to do the 'research'.

In CHRIST alone... (Jesus is MORE than enough!)

 

[djconklin]

Originally Posted by djconklin
The timing clearly pointed to 1843/4.

Have you read the ACTUAL 15 'proofs'???

PM them to me.

As a self-claimed 'researcher'

Not to mention the lengthy bibliographies to back them up. Versus the zip, nada, zilch bibliographies from the critics. Do I have to post them again? Didn't you learn the last time?!?

That will explain a lot for you if you're willing to do the 'research'.

I will. Send them to me and I'll do the work that none of the critics have done just as I did to the plagiarism claim.

 

[freeindeed2]

PM them to me.

Not to mention the lengthy bibliographies to back them up. Versus the zip, nada, zilch bibliographies from the critics. Do I have to post them again? Didn't you learn the last time?!?

I will. Send them to me and I'll do the work that none of the critics have done just as I did to the plagiarism claim.

Look them up yourself! You're the 'researcher'! You're making claims built on them! You should be able to recite them from memory! Come on David! YOU should present them in full and defend them. Post them in FULL (and in their original wording) here for all to evaluate!

In CHRIST alone...

 

[tall73]

There wasn't massive rejection of the misinterpreted message until after the fact. Many fully accepted the idea of Christ second advent even going so far as to sell property or empty bank accounts to get ready for it.

Ellen says otherwise.

The preaching of definite time called forth great opposition from all classes, from the minister in the pulpit down to the most reckless, heaven-daring sinner. "No man knoweth the day nor the hour," was heard from the hypocritical minister and the bold scoffer. Neither would be instructed and corrected by those who were pointing to the year when they believed the prophetic periods would run out, and to the signs which showed Christ near, even at the doors. Many shepherds of the flock, who professed to love Jesus, said that they had no opposition to the preaching of Christ's coming, but they objected to the definite time.



In fact the people were put out of their churches, including Ellen's family.

God was fully behind the message and the timing of Dan 8:14 and it was fully right, not wrong. The belief that the cleansing was the second advent was what was wrong.

A. Jim, quit dancing around the issue. Did Miller preach the coming of Jesus in 1843? Yes. Did Ellen say that people who rejected that false message were inciting God's anger? Yes. There is no way you can say with a straight face that Miller's message in 1843 was anything but that Jesus was coming in 1843.

B. How can you say the timing was right when he was preaching 1843, not 1844?

 

[djconklin]

I have already found them--can't wait for you to put up. And I have posted the first--we'll see how good an analysis the critics come up with--mostly likely it will be along the lines of scoffing substituting for analysis.

 

[tall73]

Test....

There wasn't massive rejection of the misinterpreted message until after the fact. Many fully accepted the idea of Christ second advent even going so far as to sell property or empty bank accounts to get ready for it.

Ellen says otherwise.

The preaching of definite time called forth great opposition from all classes, from the minister in the pulpit down to the most reckless, heaven-daring sinner. "No man knoweth the day nor the hour," was heard from the hypocritical minister and the bold scoffer. Neither would be instructed and corrected by those who were pointing to the year when they believed the prophetic periods would run out, and to the signs which showed Christ near, even at the doors. Many shepherds of the flock, who professed to love Jesus, said that they had no opposition to the preaching of Christ's coming, but they objected to the definite time.



In fact the people were put out of their churches, including Ellen's family.

God was fully behind the message and the timing of Dan 8:14 and it was fully right, not wrong.

Jim, they said Jesus was coming. That was Miller's message. Was that right or wrong? That was wrong.

They said it would be in 1843. Was that right or wrong? Wrong, even Adventists say the IJ happened in 1844.

Neither were right.

The belief that the cleansing was the second advent was what was wrong.

Jim, was not that wrong thing part of Miller's message? Yes. And Ellen said God used that WRONG message to test people.

But the time was wrong too. She even admits it but says God covered it up so they wouldn't know it.


Jim, quit dancing around the issue. Did Miller preach the coming of Jesus in 1843? Yes. Did Ellen say that people who rejected that false message were inciting God's anger? Yes. There is no way you can say with a straight face that Miller's message in 1843 was anything but that Jesus was coming in 1843. And it was wrong on all counts.

 

[djconklin]

I have already found them--can't wait for you to put up. And I have posted the first--we'll see how good an analysis the critics come up with--mostly likely it will be along the lines of scoffing substituting for analysis.

 

[tall73]

The timing clearly pointed to 1843/4.

There was no 1843/1844. It was FIRST 18443 THEN 1844.

Stop re-writing history.

Ellen said that God was in the preaching of the time 1843.

I saw that God was in the proclamation of the time in 1843.


Adventists and Ellen admit it was the WRONG time. But they say God gave that WRONG message and tested people on that WRONG message.

What should have been in question was whether or not the "cleansing of the sanctuary" meant the literal return of Christ. The operative assumption of the 2,000 Christian preachers across denominational lines in the Millerite movement was proven wrong. The test was do they go with what they knew was true or do they reject everything?

Conklin Mrs. White said it was a HEAVENLY message, not an earthly blunder. She said that the preaching of the time in 1843 was God's doing.

She even said to leave all the figures one the 1843 chart because it was just as God wanted. Even though it was completely wrong.

 

[djconklin]

There was no 1843/1844. It was FIRST 18443 THEN 1844.

Stop re-writing history.

I'm not re-writing history. To say 1843/4 = first 1843 then 1844.

What should have been in question was whether or not the "cleansing of the sanctuary" meant the literal return of Christ. The operative assumption of the 2,000 Christian preachers across denominational lines in the Millerite movement was proven wrong. The test was do they go with what they knew was true or do they reject everything?

Conklin Mrs. White said it was a HEAVENLY message, not an earthly blunder. She said that the preaching of the time in 1843 was God's doing.

She even said to leave all the figures one the 1843 chart because it was just as God wanted. Even though it was completely wrong.

Jud Lake had already answered this line of questioning. See Miller's 15 Different Proofs thread for the link.

 

[tall73]

I'm not re-writing history. To say 1843/4 = first 1843 then 1844.

Then was 1843 right? What Miller's message that Jesus was coming in 1843 right?

Of course not. Yet Ellen said God tested people on it.

Jud Lake had already answered this line of questioning. See Miller's 15 Different Proofs thread for the link.

Post it here if you have the answer. There really is no answer to the problem. Ellen said God was behind Miller's message. Miller's message was false.

Ellen said God tested people based on that message. Yet that message was false.

 

[djconklin]

I'm not so lazy that I cut-and-paste entire msgs. Follow the link that was given.

 

[Jimlarmore]

Jim, they said Jesus was coming. That was Miller's message. Was that right or wrong? That was wrong.

Was it wrong? Is Christ coming or not? The time setting was wrong for sure but to preach the soon coming of Christ was not wrong anymore back then than it is now. Your making a major issue out of the disappointment because you have disfellowshiped yourself with adventism to invalidate the church and it's message. Why not see that disappointments have been allowed to occur many times in the Bible to test the faithful instead of what you are trying to do?

They said it would be in 1843. Was that right or wrong? Wrong, even Adventists say the IJ happened in 1844.

Neither were right.

You don't have conclusive evidence that the IJ was not started in 1844 anymore than I have solid irrefuteable evidence that it did. Right now I lean more towards the IJ starting then. If you want to re-hash the IJ I suggest one of us start another thread and do it right from post #1.

Jim, was not that wrong thing part of Miller's message? Yes. And Ellen said God used that WRONG message to test people.

But the time was wrong too. She even admits it but says God covered it up so they wouldn't know it.

God uses less than perfect humanity and it's imperfect conclusions to proceed to a end He wants. Rahab the harlot was part of the royal line that led to the Messiah. Nearly all of the disciples beleive even up to His ascension that Christ would set up His kingdom on earth right then instead of later on at the time of the end. As a matter of fact they all thought that they lived in the time of the end. God never corrected their conclusions openly then either so was He covering up the truth back then? We need to go back to the word and research what it says and not what some man thinks it says.

Jim, quit dancing around the issue. Did Miller preach the coming of Jesus in 1843? Yes. Did Ellen say that people who rejected that false message were inciting God's anger? Yes. There is no way you can say with a straight face that Miller's message in 1843 was anything but that Jesus was coming in 1843. And it was wrong on all counts.

There's no debating that setting a time was wrong. However, EGW's message was not about rejecting the setting of the time itself but of the message that the end time had arrived and Christ's second advent was close. You are so eager to point a figure and impune what happened back then that you have failed to see that the great disappointment as an appointed time for God's people to be a part of prophecy and to initiate the last movement for the gospel on earth before He comes back.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Jimlarmore]

Jim, they said Jesus was coming. That was Miller's message. Was that right or wrong? That was wrong.

They said it would be in 1843. Was that right or wrong? Wrong, even Adventists say the IJ happened in 1844.

Neither were right.

Christ said the kingdom of God was at hand in His time. Some misconstrued that to mean He would set up Israel over the Romans. Was that right or wrong? Did He allow them to believe that even up to the time He ascended or not?

Setting the time was what was wrong. Preaching the soon coming of Christ was no more wrong back then than it is today?

Jim, was not that wrong thing part of Miller's message? Yes. And Ellen said God used that WRONG message to test people.

But the time was wrong too. She even admits it but says God covered it up so they wouldn't know it.

God uses imperfect humans to accomplish His intended end all the time. Rahab the harlot was part of the royal line that led up to the Messiah. Solomon, a child of Bethsheba was the product of a union that should not have ever happened but God used this man for greatness and he also was part of the royal line that led to the Messiah.

Jim, quit dancing around the issue. Did Miller preach the coming of Jesus in 1843? Yes.

I'm not dancing around the issues. I only looking at the many times this or similar things have happened in the Bible in the past where disappointments or presumed false messages were given from heaven. You want to point a fingure at this event to impune or invalidate the church because you have left it. To make it seem like it's the only time God has allowed man to mess up on his interpretation of Biblical truths. Wake up Tall and news flash. This happened several times in the historical Biblical past.

THe great disappointment of 1844 was a fulfillment of prophecy in Rev 10:10 which makes it a divine disappointment,,,. Who are we to ever question God and His plan/s?

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Jimlarmore]

I can't post with quotes on this thread for some reason. Anyone else having the same problem?

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[djconklin]

I can't post with quotes on this thread for some reason. Anyone else having the same problem?

How are you trying to do it?

 

[djconklin]

I can't post with quotes on this thread for some reason. Anyone else having the same problem?

How are you trying to do it?

 

[Jimlarmore]

Jim, they said Jesus was coming. That was Miller's message. Was that right or wrong? That was wrong.

The setting of the time was wrong there is no doubt about that. Preaching the second coming of Christ was no more wrong back then than it is today.

Jim, quit dancing around the issue. Did Miller preach the coming of Jesus in 1843? Yes. Did Ellen say that people who rejected that false message were inciting God's anger? Yes. There is no way you can say with a straight face that Miller's message in 1843 was anything but that Jesus was coming in 1843. And it was wrong on all counts.

I'm not dancing around any issues at all Tall. What I am doing is seeing that these kinds of things have happened before in the Bible. God uses imperfect humans to accomplish His intended end. The great disappointment of 1844 was a fulfillment of the prophecy in Rev 10:10 so that makes it a divine disappointment. Who are we to question God and His plan/s? You are pointing a fingure at this event and trying to make hay out of it to impune or invalidate the church because you have left it. All anyone has to do is study the Bible and they will see where God has allowed man to misinterpret the truth of the Bible many times before. The whole nation of Israel was minsinterpreting what the Messiah would do when He came the first time. Christ's own disciples thought He would set up His kingdom on earth then instead of later and they thought that right up to His ascension.

God Bless
Jim Larmore