Feast Days And Sabbath Days. Are They Still Binding?

Castaway57 · Mar 11, 2013

stinsonmarri said:
My Friend Castaway:
I love you but I will not recant even if I must die will I stand firm. That is for me not you be at peace keep Christmas and all the rest ok?

stinsonmarri

Who said you had to "recant?" The purpose of this forum is to explain official Adventist teachings. If you don't like this forum, there are lots of other ones for you to post in

Castaway57 · Mar 11, 2013

stinsonmarri said:
Now that is very interesting that you could change others work, but criticizes me for providing the Sacred Names in EGW writings and capitalizing all that reference the ALMIGHTY ONES! Special rules for you right?

stinsonmarri

I think you should just admit that you have no idea where the article you linked us to from Guam actually originates from. Do you know who the original author of that article was? It is pretty obvious that you dont or you would not talk this way.

What people have been trying to tell you here is that it is not OK to change words or writings that are inspired. Especially scripture; and as Seventh-day Adventists, our official belief is that it is not OK to change the words that Ellen White wrote either. It does change their meaning and import quite significantly, whether you say so or not.

stinsonmarri · Mar 11, 2013

Castaway57 said:
Who said you had to "recant?" The purpose of this forum is to explain official Adventist teachings. If you don't like this forum, there are lots of other ones for you to post in

Ha-Ha-Ha

You are so funny you just did with the comment: If you don't like this forum-never said I did. there are lots of other ones for you to post-I post here which is my choice because I am truly traditional and you are not!!!!

It appears you really want me to go away-why is that Castaway? I bother you and why is that Castaway? If you are to be a spiritual minded person and love the ONE you claim you serve, you would be kind and loving and agreeing to disagree. Instead you make the most noticeable claim that you wish what I post would go away. I will say again as long as you write things that are against the true teachings giving to the pioneers and message of this church, I will present the facts according to EGW and others and most of all the Bible. This is so others who ever can see points of view. Then they can decide for themselves through the HOLY SPIRIT which and who presentations is correct that's all. It is not about you personally but you take it personally and you let me know in so many unkind and unloving ways. But its alright I forgive you and still love you in spite how you and others have treated me. It is about what the Bible said to "prove all things and hold fast to the things which are good." 1Th 5:21

So when others have these various forums I provide an answer openly as I should. I am trying to allow each person to think and read for themselves and make up their own mind. Now you don't because you become extremely angry if I state that the church is not doing what it should be doing, I am a traitor and against the church! Then because I feel that I want to use the Sacred Names and also in EGW writings you tell the most unkind lie. Making claim I have changed her writing and I have not. Not any professional scholar will say that I have, I just prefer to write YAHWEH ELOHIM, instead the English pagan name god or Jehovah. YAHSHUA ELOHIM the MESSIAH, instead of English pagan made up word jesus, or the Egyptian pagan Christo-known as christ. I use HOLY SPIRIT all the time instead of the pagan believing in the dead namely the word ghost! You on the other hand has become out rage accusing me of going against the church. You act just like those during the days of the MESSIAH for everything HE did that was not according their unholy views. I truly do not like that you act this way. What is wrong with me presenting how I feel? What is wrong if I say that the church is not living up to what she was suppose to teach? I say what the Bible says about her and now everywhere I been there you are to put me down. I wrote just what EGW stated and there you go saying things unnecessary instead of just providing your take only evidence and not with resentment and tongue lashing. To me it makes you look bad, but who am I right? However, I still love you but I am going with the truth regardless how you feel and what you say. This one I must say was the funniest.

Love always and be bless,
stinsonmarri

Castaway57 · Mar 11, 2013

stinsonmarri said:
Ha-Ha-Ha

You are so funny you just did with the comment: If you don't like this forum-never said I did. there are lots of other ones for you to post-I post here which is my choice because I am truly traditional and you are not!!!!

Love always and be bless,
stinsonmarri

You do not at all teach official Adventist beliefs. The purpose of the Traditional Adventist Forums here is to do that. You are not doing that here and you know it. You are being asked to respect the purpose of each forum here.

stinsonmarri · Mar 14, 2013

Castaway:

Response to your comment:
I think you should just admit that you have no idea where the article you linked us to from Guam actually originates from. Do you know who the original author of that article was? It is pretty obvious that you dont or you would not talk this way.

Personally I really do not care but since you keep saying it tell the forum. You wrote it and I located it from that site. It is not from EGW I have all of her work. Also, you would have boldly show me that at first. So pray tell who it is my friend?

What people have been trying to tell you here is that it is not OK to change words or writings that are inspired. Especially scripture; and as Seventh-day Adventists, our official belief is that it is not OK to change the words that Ellen White wrote either. It does change their meaning and import quite significantly, whether you say so or not

You next statement what people have been trying to tell me that it is not ok to change what words or writings. EGW is not ELOHIM and she is not the Bible either. Was she moved by the HOLY SPIRIT in some of her writing yes. But some was not by the HOLY SPIRIT but by her view that she later change. She even wrote it let me remind you:

Although I am as dependent upon the SPIRIT of YAHWEH (capitalized these words and replace not change it with original HOLY Name that written.) in writing my views as I am in receiving them, yet the words I employ in describing what I have seen are my own, unless they be those spoken to me by an angel, which I always enclose in marks of quotation.--The Review and Herald, Oct. 8, 1867 (Nothing here has been changed if so prove it please!)

We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. ELOHIM (capitalized this word and replace it with original HOLY Name that was written.)and Heaven (capitalizedfirstletter where the ALMIGHTY ONES Dwell.) alone are infallible. Those who think that they will never have to give up a cherished view, never have occasion to change an opinion, will be disappointed. As long as we hold to our own ideas and opinions with determined persistency, we cannot have the unity for which the MESSIAH (capitalized this word put the word the in since it is a title and replace it with original HOLY Name that was written) prayed.--The Review and Herald, July 26, 1892.

In regard to Infallibility, I never claimed it; ELOHIM alone is INFALLIBLE (capitalized the first letter, capitalized and replace it with original HOLY Name that was written and reverence to the ALMIGHTY ONES' POWERS). HIS Word is true, and in HIM is no VARIABLENESS, or shadow of turning (ibid).--Letter 10, 1895.

The information given concerning the number of rooms in the Paradise Valley Sanitarium was given, not as a revelation from YAHWEH (ibid), but simply as a human opinion. There has never been revealed to me the exact number of rooms in any of our sanitariums; and the knowledge I have obtained of such things I have gained by inquiring of those who were supposed to know. In my words, when speaking upon these common subjects, there is nothing to lead minds to believe that I receive my knowledge in a vision from the Lord and am stating it as such. . . .
But there are times when common things must be stated, common thoughts must occupy the mind, common letters must be written and information given that has passed from one to another of the workers. Such words, such information, are not given under the special inspiration of the SPIRIT of ELOHIM. 1SM p. 37-39

You and others have as I been saying all along that you are attempting to put EGW equal with the Bible, they are not. By the way all of these versions of the Bible have been tampered with deliberately but you and these others you claim never discuss or be concern about that! They are going to be held responsible for the damage they have cause including the Jews with the false belief of the passover. The Bible said that they have made no different between the HOLY and the unholy. YAHWEH also say they have saith things that HE had not spoken. And you refuse to accept that Paul or no man can alter what YAHWEH clearly states are HIS and not any Jew or any man. Even though Paul did not say what you and most of the Christians claim that he said the Holy Appointed Set Times were done away with. You have never heard it from YAHWEH, YAHSHUA or any of the other apostles or prophets and eve Paul said let him or any man or angel be curse if they change the Gospel. So you are attempting to say Paul contradict himself. Now the Bible clearly said that would attempt to change the Holy Appointed Set Time and HIS Law and Pope have that you want to observe again that's on you!

Blessings with love,
stinsonmarri

stinsonmarri · Mar 14, 2013

Castaway57 said:
You do not at all teach official Adventist beliefs. The purpose of the Traditional Adventist Forums here is to do that. You are not doing that here and you know it. You are being asked to respect the purpose of each forum here.

You are wrong I do teach official teaching of the Second Coming of YAHSHUA. You don't! You see I accept the original message which is the Investigated Judgment. I accept that the Day of Atonement is to be observe because my HIGH PRIEST move into the MOST HOLY PLACE on the exact day and time so that Holy Appointed Set Time like the Day of Pentecost have fully come. I believe in the FATHER, SON and HOLY SPIRIT known as the ALMIGHTY ONES called ELOHIM which is THEIR Title. I keep all the Commandments of YAHWEH which includes HIS Statutes. I observe the Holy Sabbath in its fullness as one of the Statutes. I believe in all the messengers like Hiram Edison, Joseph Bates and EGW. I accept what she said that what she was shone was from the MOST HIGH. I also accept that she realized she took some of the history and views of the day and they were wrong. I know that the last prophet was John who wrote the Book of Revelation. I know that on the day of Pentecost the Loud Cry which is the out pouring of the HOLY SPIRIT. The five wise virgins will finish the work. I know that the SDA church is the last one who have been giving the message and the wheat will separate from the church and it will fall as did the Jewish and the Canaanites. I do not care what you personally think because you are not almighty. I do care for you soul but your hatred and ridiculous accusation is on you and not me. I have never called you anything or question your relationship to the SDA church. That shows the difference between you and I. I respect your belief even though I disagree with them. I cannot say the same for you. But ELOHIM know each of our hearts and will judge wisely.

Be bless with love,
stinsonmarri

Castaway57 · Mar 16, 2013

In other words stinson, you do not intend to respect the forum rules as stated here, nor do you intend to respect it's stated purpose which is why I would urge other to follow my lead and stay away from here. You and Mister rainbow have ruined any witness for Christ with your constant attacks and disregards for forum rules.

Castaway57 · Mar 16, 2013

stinsonmarri said:
You are wrong I do teach official teaching of the Second Coming of YAHSHUA. You don't!
stinsonmarri

I am not wrong. You or Mister rainbow do not teach official Adventist teachings. People don't even have to take my word for it. They can go to the official Adventist web site for them selves and compare. What you post here; and what the official Adventist web site has on their site is like night and day. Stop lying to people and saying you are Adventist. I don't know if anyone has noticed but management here appears to ignore when attack posts are reported; and it is very rare that new members will post here anymore, thanks to people such as you who do nothing but attack and villify all who do not think like you. If you think you have correct theology, thats great but you simply do not have official Adventist teachings. Everytime you say you do; you show yourself to be a liar. I understand you two will view my leaving as a victory; but the Bible tells us the smartest one is the one who walks away from the corruption, rather than embracing it.

People who only want an attack "ministry" such as your's have already received the mark of the beast.

I am not coming back to this forum. You and mister rainbow have made it a den of thieves, and have driven everyone away with your hatred and bitterness, and your unwillingness to talk about the love of God, and your willingness to condemn and attack other denominations, and even the very church which you used to belong to. And as far as I am concerned, this is not just non-Adventist; it is non-Christian.

I hope you two have lots of fun posting to yourselves. No one wants to listen to you, and it's the only fun you will ever have. Enjoy

Stan Tei · Mar 16, 2013

In Revelation 3:14 - 19 it clearly spells out the condition of the church at the time of the end. It is not surprising that the SDA church even boasts about being the Laodicean church, as though it were some badge of honor to wear. We boast about being the only church that has the real truth, and all others are part of Babylon. Yet the Scriptures say otherwise. Now either the OFFICIAL SDA position is right, or the Bible is right. You cannot have it both ways. So when I see the Scripture that says: "and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:" along witht he view that the OFFICIAL SDA position is always correct, then I know that the SDA position is in error.

Ellen White made a clear distinction showing that Jesus KEPT the Feasts, yet He did NOT participate with any of the CEREMONIAL services. This obviously shows the distinction that the Feasts are not part of the ceremonial services. She also goes on to elaborate of the Apostle Paul's keeping of the Feasts with his Gentile converts. She also spoke kindly with one of our pastors who she knew was keeping the Feasts, and never spoke an unkind word to him nor condemned the practice. The church leaders on the other hand, castigated him and he left to go to South America, and gave the truth of the Feasts to another Sabbath-keeping church and they readily accepted that truth.

The only one "ATTACKING" anyone here is you Castaway. The vast majority of the posts I have made here are verbatim quotes from the Spirit of Prophecy and from Scripture. I have made no attacks of any kind.

stinsonmarri · Mar 16, 2013

Amen Stan:

I am a shame that he feels this way about others but the only thing we can do is to pray for Castaway. Be at peace.

Blessings,
stinsonmarri

David Conklin · Mar 30, 2013

>Then because I feel that I want to use the Sacred Names and also in EGW writings you tell the most unkind lie.

That doesn't seem to make sense. Please explain.

stinsonmarri · Mar 30, 2013

David Conklin said:
>Then because I feel that I want to use the Sacred Names and also in EGW writings you tell the most unkind lie.

That doesn't seem to make sense. Please explain.

David:

I will be glad to explain. YASHUA was born during the time that the Jewish people hated the Romans and the Greek. Base just on culture they would not have given their SON a Indo-European name. Secondly the Bible states very clear that the SON would come in HIS FATHER'S Name. Thirdly the letter J did not come into the middle century. We SDA don't call our ministers Reverence because we have clearly explain that only the ALMIGHTY ONES Names are Holy. If that be the case why are using pagan names instead of THEIR Sacred Names and Title. Let me provide an illustration from the Bible:

And it is a rare thing that the king requireth, and there is none other that can shew it before the king, except the gods (the actual word is ELAHIN the plural Aramaic form of the Hebrew ELOHIM ), whose dwelling is not with flesh. Dan 2:11

Elahin, also plural, is always a "true plural," meaning it should be translated gods. BibleWise

I thought it good to shew the signs and wonders that the high God (the actual word is ELAH the singular form of the Aramaic word of the Hebrew word ELOAH!) hath wrought toward me. But at the last Daniel came in before me, whose name was Belteshazzar, according to the name of my god, and in whom is the spirit of the holy gods (ELAHIN): and before him I told the dream, saying,
Dan 4:2, 8

Here is written proof in another Semitic language used to show that there were more than ONE BEING but THREE and the plural form was for more than ONE. But when referring only to the MOST HIGH the singular form was used. It is exactly what EGW said in EW that words were changed but YAHWEH truth would be revealed because most want to claim the ELOHIM is not what is actually mean a plural word. I also want to show that these names were used. God, jesus, christ, lord, are names that Indo-European supplied from their pagan gods and should not be used. Holy and Reverence are THEIR Names. I also cap. them out of respect as well.

When I quote from EGW I only used instead the Sacred Holy Names and I cap all personal nouns referring to the ALMIGHTY ONES. I have being accused of changing what she actually said I have not which is a lie I only used the Sacred Names and that is all! This is my answer!

Happy Sabbath and be bless,
stinsonmarri

David Conklin · Mar 30, 2013

>Thirdly the letter J did not come into the middle century.

What?!? Who told you that?

>Elahin, also plural, is always a "true plural," meaning it should be translated gods.

The Hebrew word is "elohiym".
Who told you that it is a "true plural"?
Even in English we have words that are plural in "construct but we translate them as singular; such as athletics/ gymnastics/ mathematics/ physics/ electronics/ economics/ politics.

>We SDA don't call our ministers Reverence

Which denomination does?

>When I quote from EGW I only used instead the Sacred Holy Names

Then it isn't a quote.

stinsonmarri · Apr 6, 2013

David:

In response to your comments:

Thirdly the letter J did not come into the middle century. What?!? Who told you that?

It amazes me that people do not understand history but think that they can understand the Bible. If you do not understand ancient history you will never truly understand the Bible. This magnificent Book is history wrap with up with prophetic mystery that it declare to all you must have wisdom and not interpretation. You must have spiritual understanding and not man mere unperfected understanding. You must study to show yourself approve to be a workman unto the MOST HIGH. This is where so many has come short history is the most hated subject in education thanks to Satan and his deceit. Here is the answer splatter all over the internet and my knowledge of ancient history that tells me!

The form of J was unknown in any alphabet until the 14th century. Either symbol (J, I) used initially generally had the consonantal sound of Y as in year. Gradually, the two symbols (J, I) were differentiated, the J usually acquiring consonantal force and thus becoming regarded as a consonant, and the I becoming a vowel. It was not until 1630 that the differentiation became general in England.The Encyclopedia American
J, the tenth letter of the English alphabet, is the youngest of the 26 letters. It is a descendant of the letter I and was not generally considered a separate letter until the 17th century. The early history of the letter J is the same as the history of the letter I. I is a descendant of the ancient Phoenician and Hebrew letter yod and the Greek letter iota”. The New Book of Knowledge Vol. 10, 1992 ed.

The tenth letter of the English alphabet developed as a variant form of I in Medieval Latin, and except for the preference for the J as an initial letter, the two were used interchangeably, both serving to represent the vowel (i) and the consonant (y). Later, through specialization, it came to be distinguished as a separate sign, acquiring its present phonetic value under the influence of the French. The Random House Dictionary of the English Language

J, a letter of the alphabet which, as far as form is concerned, is only a modification of the Latin I and dates back with a separate value only to the 15th century. It was first used as a special form of initial I, the ordinary form being kept for use in other positions. As, however, in many cases initial i had the consonantal value of the English y in iugum (yoke), &c., the symbol came to be used for the value of y, a value which it still retains in German: Ja! Jung, & c. Initially it is pronounced in English as an affricate dzh. The great majority of English words beginning with j are of foreign (mostly French) origin, as ‘jaundice,’ ‘judge’”… The Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition p. 103

Here are other references if you like: Funk and Wagnall’s Encyclopedia, 1979 edition; Vol. 14, p. 94;Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary; World Book Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, 1995 ed. Also according to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and others, the letter 'J' originated as a swash character as well.The Eminent French historian, scholar, and archaeologist Ernest Renan acknowledges that YAHSHUA was never in HIS lifetime called "Jesus." In his book, The Life of Jesus, Renan doubts that the Savior even spoke Greek (p.90)

It is historically clear that HE didn't instead HE used a close language to Hebrew Aramaic.

The Hebrew word is "elohiym". Who told you that it is a "true plural"? Even in English we have words that are plural in "construct but we translate them as singular; such as athletics/ gymnastics/ mathematics/ physics/ electronics/ economics/ politics.

We come to the most important fact if you truly believe in the original Bible message. I provided to you ELAHIN which comes for the Hebrews cousin the Chaldeans. This word is always plural and Daniel in his book proves that Nebuchadnezzar as most heathens knew that the FATHER, SON and HOLY SPIRIT existed in Heaven. Dan 4:2, 8 ELOAH - (a singular Hebrew form of ELOHIM) that appears over 70 times in the Tanakh. Deut 32:15; 2 Chr. 32:15; Neh 9:17; Job 3:4, 23; 4:9; 5:17; 6:4, 8f; 9:13; 10:2; 11:5; 12:6; 15:8; 16:20; 19:6, 21, 26; 21:9, 19; 22:12, 26; 27:3, 8, 10; 29:2, 4; 31:2, 6; 33:12, 26; 35:10; 37:15, 22; 39:17; 40:2; Ps 18:32; 50:22; 114:7; 139:19; Prov 30:5; Isa. 44:8; Dan 11:37, 39; Hab 3:3. ELAH is the Aramaic singular form of the Hebrew word ELOAH. Also in the New Testament John makes it very clear that YAHSHUA is ELOHIM as well.

In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was with ELOHIM, and the WORD was ELOHIM. The same was in the beginning with ELOHIM. All things were made by HIM; and without HIM was not any thing made that was made. John 1:1-3

Then Paul makes it even more clear:

ELOHIM, 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; Who being the brightness of HIS GLORY, and the express CHARACTER of HIS BEING, and upholding all things by the word of HIS Power, when HE had by HIMSELF purged our sins, sat down on the Right Hand of the MAJESTY on HIGH; Being made so much better than the angels, as HE hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent Name than they. For unto which of the angels said HE at any time, Thou art MY SON, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a FATHER, and he shall be to me a Son? And again, when HE bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, HE saith, And let all the angels of ELOHIM worship HIM. And of the angels he saith, Who maketh HISangels spirits, and HIS ministers a flame of fire. But unto the SON HE saith, Thy Throne, O ELOAH, is for ever and ever: a Sceptre of RIGHTEOUSNESS is the Sceptre of THY Kingdom. THOU hast loved RIGHTEOUSNESS, and hated iniquity; therefore ELOAH, even thy ELOHIM, hath Anointed THEE with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. Heb 1:1-8

David you who speaks most about those who critizes EGW stated this:

I saw that ELOHIM had especially guarded the Bible; yet when copies of it were few, learned men had in some instances changed the words, thinking that they were making it more plain, when in reality they were mystifying that which was plain, by causing it to lean to their established views, which were governed by tradition. But I saw that the Word of ELOHIM, as a whole, is a perfect chain, one portion linking into and explaining another. True seekers for truth need not err; for not only is the Word of ELOHIM plain and simple in declaring the way of life, but the HOLY SPIRIT is given as a guide in understanding the way to life therein revealed. EW p. 220, 221

Next who was the FATHER talking to HIMSELF?

And YAHSHUA, when HEwas baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the SPIRIT ELOHIM descending like a dove, and lighting upon HIM: And lo a Voice from Heaven, saying, This is MY Beloved SON, in whom I am well Pleased. Mat 3:16, 17

Yes I changed and used the correct meanings of words because I believe "hypostasis" was placed there including the word "of" always before the HOLY SPIRIT. Making it appear that the SPIRIT is not ELOHIM! But the Bibles proves that this is wrong as well:
For there are THREE that bear record in Heaven, the FATHER, the WORD, and the HOLY SPIRIT: and these THREE are ONE. 1Jn 5:7 (The Greek word "heis," is used which is not explainable but in the Old Testatment the Hebrew word echâd" means united or altogether-simple if you choose to beleive the truth and facts.)!

We SDA don't call our ministers Reverence-Which denomination does?

Where did I ever say that SDA use the word Revernce David? However you must not been to other denominations like the Baptist, Methodist and others because they use a form of the word - reverent! We instead say pastor or elder and there are others who follow the same practice that we do as well. But for centuries begining with the Catholic Church the word reverend was alway used for ministers.

reverend: (initial capital letter ) (used as a title of respect applied or prefixed to the name of a member of the clergy or a religious order. Dictionary.com Unabridged

Then it isn't a quote.

Well when you can provide for me professionally that it isn't then I stand firm that it is a quote. I have not changed any meaning of anything my friend.

Be bless,
stinsonmarri

PS: Upgraded to windows 8 had some problems would have responded earlier!

Castaway57 · Apr 12, 2013

stinsonmarri said:
David:

It amazes me that people do not understand history but think that they can understand the Bible. If you do not understand ancient history you will never truly understand the Bible.

This is not true; the Word of God is living, and active, and quite independent of "history;" so called. There are many different, subjective anecdotal interpretations to history, and to say the Word of God is dependent for understanding on something finite and subjective is simply wrong. The Bible is used to justify/prove "all things," not some things. And since it does reflect that the feast days and Sabbath days are/were types of shadows of Calvary, then we can safely reason, based on history, proven by the Bible, that Christ's death on the cross satisfies fully what these Feast days, Sabbath Days, etc has SYMBOLIZED but never did or will accomplish.

Castaway57 · Apr 12, 2013

David Conklin said:
>
>When I quote from EGW I only used instead the Sacred Holy Names

Then it isn't a quote.

Point well-taken here David

Castaway57 · Apr 12, 2013

stinsonmarri said:
Then it isn't a quote.

Well when you can provide for me professionally that it isn't then I stand firm that it is a quote. I have not changed any meaning of anything my friend.

And of course; you are the "professional" and we are not. Yikes, where have we heard that line before?

It's too bad you have decided to deny the reality here, you change the words, you change the meanings, because you say it differently than the author. The question is not so much was the author you quoted right or wrong; as it is did you in fact directly, verbatim quote the author - and everyone can see you did not. You cant say you quote someone; when in fact you don't.

David Conklin · Apr 13, 2013

>>>We SDA don't call our ministers Reverence
>>Which denomination does?
>Where did I ever say that SDA use the word Revernce David?

Its your statement, I simply quoted it and asked a question.

>However you must not been to other denominations like the Baptist, Methodist and others because they use a form of the word - reverent

I was a Methodist. We NEVER used the word "reverent."

>Well when you can provide for me professionally that it isn't then I stand firm that it is a quote.

Read scholarly literature. None of them would change or edit a quote--unless they wanted to get skewered and lose their reputation in the eys of their colleages and never be published again.

David Conklin · Apr 13, 2013

stinsonmarri said:
>>>Thirdly the letter J did not come into the middle century.

>>What?!? Who told you that?

>It amazes me that people do not understand history but think that they can understand the Bible.

Ah, he was wrong and won't admit it.

And then you admit that you were wrong!

"The form of J was unknown in any alphabet until the 14th century."

The Eminent French historian, scholar, and archaeologist Ernest Renan acknowledges that YAHSHUA was never in HIS lifetime called "Jesus." In his book, The Life of Jesus, Renan doubts that the Savior even spoke Greek (p.90)

He had to have spoken Greek.

Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

EGW stated this:

I saw that ELOHIM had especially guarded the Bible; yet when copies of it were few, learned men had in some instances changed the words, thinking that they were making it more plain, when in reality they were mystifying that which was plain, by causing it to lean to their established views, which were governed by tradition. But I saw that the Word of ELOHIM, as a whole, is a perfect chain, one portion linking into and explaining another. True seekers for truth need not err; for not only is the Word of ELOHIM plain and simple in declaring the way of life, but the HOLY SPIRIT is given as a guide in understanding the way to life therein revealed. EW p. 220, 221

Actual quote:

"I saw that God had especially guarded the Bible; yet when copies of it were few, learned men had in some instances changed the words, thinking that they were making it more plain, when in reality they were mystifying that which was plain, by causing it to lean to their established views, which were governed by tradition. But I saw that the Word of God, as a whole, is a perfect chain, one portion linking into and explaining another. True seekers for truth need not err; for not only is the Word of God plain and simple in declaring the way of life, but the Holy Spirit is given as a guide in understanding the way to life therein revealed." {EW 220.2}

David Conklin · Apr 13, 2013

>>>The Hebrew word is "elohiym".
>>Who told you that it is a "true plural"? Even in English we have words that are plural in "construct but we translate them as singular; such as athletics/ gymnastics/ mathematics/ physics/ electronics/ economics/ politics.
>This word is always plural

Repeating the same claim doesn't make it true.

>ELOAH - (a singular Hebrew form of ELOHIM) that appears over 70 times in the Tanakh. Deut 32:15

Nope; given as elowahh, rarely shortened to eloah.

Feast Days And Sabbath Days. Are They Still Binding?

Born Twice

Born Twice

Regular Member

Born Twice

Regular Member

Regular Member

Born Twice

Born Twice

Stan Tei

Guest

Regular Member

Newbie

Regular Member

Newbie

Regular Member

Born Twice

Born Twice

Born Twice

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency