Fifty percent isn't that bad now, is it?
Deut 5:1 Hear, Israel, the decrees and the laws I declare in your hearing today. Learn them and be sure to follow them. 2 The Lord our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. 3 It was not with our ancestors that the Lord made this covenant, but with us, with all of us who are alive here today.
It would seem like Moses and you have some differences as to when the command to observe Sabbath came to be. I know SDAs like to assume that Abraham was a payor of tithes on his income, but that is not what scripture tells us. You would like to assume there is a 10 in front of commandments in the New Testament, but that is not what scripture tells us. You would like to deny verses like 2Cor3:7-11 and Eph 2:15. Gal 3 blows Adventism out of the water. All kinds of excuses are made concerning Col 2. It appears to be either the Bible or, not and, Mrs. White. I had to make that decision. I am so glad I chose the Bible.
I am curious about your attack on the SDA. I am also curious about Gen 26:5/6, and Gen 18:19, Duet 5:1, Gal 3., 2Cor 3:7-11, Eph 2:15.
Regarding the sabbath, the SDA, as an institution, are on the right side of a line; keeping the day does not constitute keeping the Sabbath; but individuals in the SDA have an opportunity to get it right, conversely those who abrogate the Sabbath have no chance.
It is always possible to disagree with anyone's opinion but Hebrews 7:1-4 says Abraham paid tithes at least on one occasion.
Genesis 26:5 (NKJV)
5 because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws."
This is Moses giving a brief history of the previous 2000 years, we know sin existed during that time and sin requires to be defined by the Law; it seems to me, Moses is saying what God requires of Israel and us is what God required of Abraham. We are not told what specific laws were given to Abraham, but we know God does not change.
What was given to Moses was a contract; Israel would keep God's charge, keep God's commandments, keep God's statutes and keep God's Laws, as did Abraham and presumably Noah; and in return God would provide the Kingdom of God, which was promised to Abraham, the king or Messiah, the promise of whom preceded Abraham, and of course, salvation for those who will inherit their place in the kingdom.
Christ arrives on cue as per Daniel's prophesy, did He find faith? Yes and no; to the Pharisees He said, “The kingdom of God has been taken from you.” Was there any who kept God's charge, His commandments, His statutes and His Law? Mary and Mary's grandfather and uncles did, John the Baptist's relatives did, and I believe Rev. 12:1, refers to those who kept God's charge; without which the Kingdom of God would not have come; Christ would not have begun confirming the covenant, converting promise to reality. Israel as a nation failed but individuals succeeded.
I guess the issue is, is the Law abrogated or is it simply under new administration? You seem to be suggesting we have the same king, the same kingdom but a different Law or covenant. How is the New covenant different to the Old? The new covenant has a different date and different signatures, but the terms and conditions are the same. Jeremiah mentions two differences; people under the New covenant know the Law with out having to learn it, but this is administration, no terms or conditions are changed; another difference mentioned by Jeremiah is, with the New covenant the consequences of the sins of the father are not carried forward for three generations, but this is also administrative and not the terms and conditions determining the kingdom and its inhabitants. Hebrews states that the law had to be changed so that Jesus could be a High Priest. I believe the Law would require a public service to administrate the Law, but the fact that the Levites were chosen doesn't mean they were critical for salvation, for the Kingdom to come, but only that they were the only and best choice at the time. But if it was a requirement that the High Priest be a Levite in any subsequent renewing of the covenant, and the covenant was renewed each time a remnant came out each time Israel crashed, and the New covenant congregation was a remnant coming out, then looking at the linage of Mary given by Luke, and of course Mathew didn't think Joseph's linage was irreleverent, Jesus appears to have blood from all the twelve tribes and would have been as much Levite as He was Jew.
Considering the proposition; the law is abrogated; would those who keep the Law in the manner God required previously be punished? Of course not.
Considering the proposition; the Law is not abrogated; would those following false prophets lose the salvation? Of course.
Regarding Paul; the SDA use Paul to prove their position.
Ellen White was very good as far as evangelists go. She wasn't perfect but one would be hard pressed to find one better. Her greatest error is to do with the 2300 year prophesy. Recently I asked knowledgeable SDA why they start counting the 2300 years from the 590 years, and he didn't say Snow or any of the old crowd from the great awakening, but rather the start counting from the command to rebuild Jerusalem be cause a group of SDA elders decided that is where they start. I believe the 2300 years are tagged onto the end of the 590 years, is the period between the first and second coming, is the time frame that Revelation covers, is that great and terrible day of the Lord.
One thing that Ellen white has in common with to days Evangelists is the man of sin was not revealed to her. AS the end time climax approaches I expect a woman of sin.