Is Genesis literal or a myth

[djconklin]

The quotes you're responding to in this post are not mine (freeindeed2).

I didn't say that they were.

 

[djconklin]

Go and read Proof #15 and you'll see the 'here a little, there a little' method being utilized by Miller. The outcome is aweful and distorts Scripture to say what it does not.

Any group, movement, or denomination that utilizes this method for arriving at doctrine would defend it. So I expect that from SDA's. I learned how to do this in SDA theology classes in all three SDA universities I was at. It's perfectly 'normal' to establish the distinct SDA doctrines. But it's not a truly systematic approach to Bible interpretation.

Go read all 15 proofs! You'll see how bad it really is.

Please email the list and your problems with it.

I find it interesting that scholars in the field don't find any problem with it.

 

[freeindeed2]

Please email the list and your problems with it.

I find it interesting that scholars in the field don't find any problem with it.

Here is a link where all 15 of the original proofs of William Miller are posted individually. I'm not sure which scholars you're referring to, but it doesn't take a scholar to see that there are serious problems with his "15 Proofs".

http://www.christianforums.com/t4862266-sdas-formers-w-millers-15-proofs-for-oct-22-1844.html

After reading them let me know if you can call them a "perfect chain of biblical truth" as EGW did.

 

[djconklin]

Rather than trying to wade through an extended discussion why not use the thread I had started over an hour before?

See http://www.earlysda.com/miller/views1.html#Rules%20of%20Scriptural%20Interpretation

For Miller's list.

 

[djconklin]

I learned how to do this in SDA theology classes in all three SDA universities I was at.

We have three universities?

 

[freeindeed2]

Rather than trying to wade through an extended discussion why not use the thread I had started over an hour before?

See http://www.earlysda.com/miller/views1.html#Rules of Scriptural Interpretation

For Miller's list.

David, there's no wading needed. Each 'proof' is labeled Proof #1, Proof #2, Proof #3, etc. It's quite easy to reference, and they're all posted. As a 'researcher' you should find it quite easy.

 

[freeindeed2]

We have three universities?

The three I attended are all SDA Universities (AU, SWAU, SAU). And then there's Loma Linda University, La Sierra University, and I can't think if there are any more. But that's FIVE!

I believe that you and I were at Andrews at the same time. What years were you there? Were you in theology classes there too? Maybe we sat in the same class at the same time...

You are a researcher, right? Did you ever take a research class from Oystien LaBianca (sp?). I seem to recall taking a research methods class from him and one other research class (don't remember the name now).

I took a few classes from S. Bacchiocchi (sp?) too. Did you ever take from him?

 

[djconklin]

I seem to recall hearing that La Sierra and Loma Linda merged. Never heard of SWAU.

If I remember correctly I was at Andrews something like '89-'93. I had to take theology courses--it's kinda required when you are in the seminary.

I didn't need to take courses under LaBianca; I can't recall taking any undergrad classes from Dr. Bacchiocchi.

 

[djconklin]

David, there's no wading needed. Each 'proof' is labeled Proof #1, Proof #2, Proof #3, etc. It's quite easy to reference, and they're all posted. As a 'researcher' you should find it quite easy

I found it! I can see why you didn't want to deal with the list I had found. My list is Wm. Miller's list, whereas "yours" was created by someone else.

 

[freeindeed2]

I found it! I can see why you didn't want to deal with the list I had found. My list is Wm. Miller's list, whereas "yours" was created by someone else.

I haven't even seen your list, and how do you figure that "mine" was created by someone else. Maybe 'compiled', but NOT 'created'. You can check out the reference I gave. They are Miller's actual 15 proofs. Take them apart piece by piece. You'll find they are exactly as Miller gave them.

 

[freeindeed2]

I seem to recall hearing that La Sierra and Loma Linda merged. Never heard of SWAU.

Southwestern Adventist University - Keene, Texas

If I remember correctly I was at Andrews something like '89-'93. I had to take theology courses--it's kinda required when you are in the seminary.

I didn't know you were in the seminary. Are you an SDA pastor too? Where do you pastor?

I didn't need to take courses under LaBianca; I can't recall taking any undergrad classes from Dr. Bacchiocchi.

How did you avoid his classes as a theology major and seminary student?

 

[freeindeed2]

I found it! I can see why you didn't want to deal with the list I had found. My list is Wm. Miller's list, whereas "yours" was created by someone else.

OK. I've browsed through the website you posted. Can you provide me a link to that site where Miller's "15 Proofs" for the second coming of Christ in 1843 are listed? I had a hard time finding them there.

I saw his proof-texts for his method of biblical interpretation, but not the proofs for the 1843 date.

BTW, analyzing Millers methods of Bible study and the conclusions he arrived at is exactly what Arasola did in his book where he reprinted Miller's 15 proofs.

Thanks.

 

[djconklin]

Originally Posted by djconklin
I seem to recall hearing that La Sierra and Loma Linda merged. Never heard of SWAU.

Southwestern Adventist University - Keene, Texas

No wonder I had never heard of SWAU: it started offering grad school degrees in 1989! See, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwestern_Adventist_University

How did you avoid his classes as a theology major and seminary student?

As best I can recall I didn't need to take any of Dr. Bacchiocchi's courses in the undergrad.

Dr. Bacchiocchi doesn't teach in the seminary.

 

[djconklin]

I haven't even seen your list,

The links were given at http://www.christianforums.com/t4907680-william-millers-rules-of-interpretation.html

and how do you figure that "mine" was created by someone else. Maybe 'compiled', but NOT 'created'.
You can check out the reference I gave.

Look at the source:

"Kai Arasola, The End of Historicism, (Sigtuna, Sweden: Datem Publishing, 1990) pages 219-225

Dr. Arasola (an SDA) analyzed W. Miller's methods of Bible study and his conclusions, including his "15 proofs" (he reprinted them in the book) which were instrumental to arriving at the three different dates for Christ's second coming (and soon after their failure, the same dates were used for the basis of the Investigative Judgment)."

Note that Arasola's "proofs" are not Wm. Miller's 15 proofs for Biblical interpretation. Note also that Wm. Miller didn't come up with 3 different dates for Christ's return. That's the killer clue that the list is bogus.

Anyone who has done even a modicum of research should know the imporatnce of consulting the primary source materials vs. someone's "interpretation" of those materials.

 

[freeindeed2]

The links were given at http://www.christianforums.com/t4907680-william-millers-rules-of-interpretation.html



Look at the source:

"Kai Arasola, The End of Historicism, (Sigtuna, Sweden: Datem Publishing, 1990) pages 219-225

That's the source.

Dr. Arasola (an SDA) analyzed W. Miller's methods of Bible study and his conclusions, including his "15 proofs" (he reprinted them in the book) which were instrumental to arriving at the three different dates for Christ's second coming (and soon after their failure, the same dates were used for the basis of the Investigative Judgment)."

These are my words. It's a synopsis for what the book is about.

Note that Arasola's "proofs" are not Wm. Miller's 15 proofs for Biblical interpretation.

The thread is not about Miller's "proofs" for intrepretation!

It IS about his "15 proofs" for the 1843 date/second coming of Christ, and they are all stated exactly as he wrote them.

Note also that Wm. Miller didn't come up with 3 different dates for Christ's return. That's the killer clue that the list is bogus.

Miller originally said the 2nd coming would take place in 1843 (and he used his 15 proofs to establish this).

His second date (or time) was the Spring of 1844 (after they discovered one of their errors, no year "0").

His (the Millerites) third date was October 22, 1844.

Sorry David, that's three different dates or times that were set, all based on the 15 proofs that are being discussed on the thread in GT. The same proofs were then used to 'prove' the Sanctuary doctrine/Investigative Judgment which was introduced in part on Oct. 23, 1844 when Hiram Edson had his one and only vision, later confirmed by EGW's own vision.

Anyone who has done even a modicum of research should know the imporatnce of consulting the primary source materials vs. someone's "interpretation" of those materials.

I have not posted any interpretation of the original "15 proofs" of William Miller where he attempts to prove that Jesus was returning in 1843. I only posted the actual proofs themselves. You can accuse me of posting otherwise, but if you'll check them you'll see I am telling the truth. If I have made an error please show it to me and I'll fix it immediately.

 

[djconklin]

It IS about his "15 proofs" for the 1843 date/second coming of Christ, and they are all stated exactly as he wrote them.

The fact that neither you nor Arasola can point to where Wm. Miller supposedly gave those "15 proofs" is quite telling. The only rules we have from Wm. Miller are his 14 rules for proper Biblical interpretation.

His (the Millerites) third date was October 22, 1844.

Sorry, there's a big difference between "his" and the Millerites. By that standard we could accuse Einstien of having perpetated the Holocaust on the grounds that he was a German.

when Hiram Edson had his one and only vision

And your point would be? How many did Amos have?

I have not posted any interpretation of the original "15 proofs" of William Miller

You did when you posted Arasola's interpretation.

My point was that we need to get back to the primary source vs. using someone's interpretation of what the primary sourrce supposedly said.

 

[djconklin]

I went to http://www.earlysda.com/download.html and downloaded all 3 files on Wm.Miller. I found that none of them say "I prove it by the time given by Moses, in the 26th chapter of Leviticus, being seven times that the people of God are to be in bondage to the kingdoms of this world; or in Babylon, literal and mystical; which seven times cannot be undertsood less than seven times 360 revolutions of the earth in its orbit, making 2520 years." So, either Wm. Miller said it somewhere else (which we are not being told about), or he never said it.

BTW, you can also read ab't these "proofs" at http://www.truthorfables.com/Miller's_Time _Proved_15_Ways.htm; note that these were "compiled" (to put the best blush on it) from a variety of alleged sources.

 

[djconklin]

Miller originally said the 2nd coming would take place in 1843 (and he used his 15 proofs to establish this).

His second date (or time) was the Spring of 1844 (after they discovered one of their errors, no year "0").

A little reserach on the web reveals:

Miller taught Christ would return in 1843. This too is an oversimplification. The major thrust of Miller's preaching, and that which aroused so much opposition, was not that the judgment would begin and Christ would come about the year 1843. Rather, what aroused opposition was his teaching that Christ would come soon.
It sounds strange today, but at that time most churches were teaching that Christ would not come until after a thousand years of peace on earth, during which the whole world would be converted. Bible prophecies about the second coming and the resur­rection they believed would not be literally fulfilled. These doctrines were popularized by Daniel Whitby, an Englishman who died in 1726 (Ibid., vol. 2, pp. 651-655).
Miller and his associates taught most definitely that the whole world would not be converted, and that Christ would come personally and visibly before, not after, the thousand years. The date of 1843 only brought to a head these major points of theological difference (Ibid., vol. 4, pp. 765-766).
Most churches, it seems, now believe what William Miller taught about Christ's second coming. They can thank him, in part, for this correction in their theology. Regarding this very theological correction, one British writer put it this way in an 1843 issue of Christian Messenger and Reformer: "We shall all, under Christ, be indebted to Mr. Miller, even if the Lord shall not come in 1843."-Froom, vol. 4, p. 716.
The documentation package offered at the end of the video is supposed to substantiate the video's accusations. It consists of a compilation of photocop­ies covering a hundred different points. "Point 4" is listed in its index as "William Miller's dates of 1843 and 1844." However, when one turns to the photo­copy provided under "Point 4," the date 1843 cannot be found. Neither can Miller's views regarding either 1843 or 1844.
It is true, though, that in December 1842 Miller began to teach that Christ would come in 1843. This was more than eleven years after he gave his first sermon on Christ's soon return. Previous to Decem­ber 1842, he had consistently said Christ would come "about the year 1843" "if there were no mistakes in my calculation" (Bliss, p. 329).
In 1842 Miller found himself falsely accused by the public press of having set the date of April 23 for Christ's return. Additionally, he was censured by some of his associates that year for constantly saying "about" and "if." Therefore, not finding any error in his calculations, Miller decided to remove the "about" and the "if" that December. From then until March 21, 1844, he taught that Christ would come in the Jewish year of 1843 at the end of the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14.
"And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed" (Dan. 8:14). Miller took these 2300 days to be 2300 years (Num. 14:34; Ezek. 4:6). He began them at the same time as the 70 weeks of Daniel 9 in 457 BC, and thus ended them in 1843. The cleansing of the sanctuary he identified with the day of judgment.
In many of his conclusions, Miller was in harmony with multitudes of scholars spanning centuries. For example, Reformed pastor Johann Petri in 1768 said that the 2300 days begin at the same time as the 70 weeks, and end with the second coming in 1847 (Froom, vol. 2, p. 715). His date of 1847 and Miller's of 1843 were essentially the same (see #64).
#6: Miller taught Christ would return on October 22, 1844. He never did. By claiming that the date of October 22 is based on Miller, the video can more easily attack Millerite Adventists, since views proposed by single individuals appear to have less credibility. But Miller never taught this.
He and Joshua V. Himes were preaching in the west the summer of 1844. When they returned east, they found everyone afire with the idea that Christ would come on October 22, the tenth day of the seventh Jewish month by Karaite reckoning. This fast ­spreading message became known as the "seventh ­month movement."
Why the tenth day of the seventh month? Because that was the Day of Atonement, called Yom Kippur in Hebrew, an annual feast day of ancient Israel when their sanctuary was cleansed (Lev. 16). It seemed quite natural to connect this with the cleansing of the sanctuary of Daniel 8:14.
Samuel S. Snow was the originator of the date of October 22, presenting the topic in the Boston Tabernacle on July 21, 1844. Then in August he presented his material at a camp meeting in Exeter, New Hampshire. After that the idea spread like wild fire. By October 22, fifty thousand Millerites believed Christ was coming on that day (Froom, vol. 4, pp. 799-826).
Miller, as well as the other principal Millerite leaders, resisted for awhile this pinpointing of a particular day, something they had always shunned. Miller's opposition can still be seen in his letter dated September 30 (Bliss, p. 270).
Unable to explain what was so evidently the work of the Holy Spirit reforming and converting people's lives, Miller began to capitulate on October 6. In his letter of that date, published in the October 12, 1844, issue of Midnight Cry, Miller said he would be disappointed if Christ did not return "within twenty or twenty-five days," which indicates he was looking toward October 26 or 31 as being the limit, not October 22.
The data from the letter follows, in the order that it appears:
When did the 2300 days end? Last spring.
... Christ will come in the seventh month ....
If he does not come within 20 or 25 days, I shall feel twice the disappointment I did this spring.
... it must and will come this fall.... I see no reason why we may not expect him within twenty days.... just so true will redemption be completed by the fifteenth day of the seventh month ....
I am strong in my opinion that the next [Sunday, Oct. 13,] will be the last Lord's day sinners will ever have in probation; and within ten or fifteen days from thence, they will see Him ....
... in twenty days or less I shall see all that love Jesus.
So on October 6, Miller thought Christ would come that month, but not necessarily on the 22nd. His words most often suggest that Christ could come by the 26th, but they also suggest that Christ could return by the 23rd, 27th, 28th, and 31st, all in the same letter. And at the same time, he still maintained that the 2300 days had already ended the previous spring.
Miller's first letter to Himes after October 22 is dated November 10, and expresses his disappoint­ment (Bliss, p. 277). This was the date of the astro­nomical new moon, which in Miller's mind could have marked the end of the seventh Jewish month according to the Karaite lunar calendar. The fact that Miller waited until the new moon before expressing his disappointment is further confirmation that he felt Christ would come in the seventh Jewish month, but not necessarily on the tenth day of that seventh month.
In a letter to J. O. Orr of Toronto, Canada West, on December 13, 1844, Miller wrote:
The ninth day [of the seventh month (October 21)] was very remarkable.... In the evening I told some of my [brethren] Christ would not come on the morrow. Why not? said they. Because he cannot come in an hour they think not, nor as a snare.
Clearly, even on October 21, Miller had not yet accepted the date of October 22, much less taught it."

See http://www.ellenwhitedefend.com/Video Answers1.htm

 

[freeindeed2]

The fact that neither you nor Arasola can point to where Wm. Miller supposedly gave those "15 proofs" is quite telling. The only rules we have from Wm. Miller are his 14 rules for proper Biblical interpretation.

No sir. Arasola cites where each and every one came from in his book. Don't forget that Arasola IS SDA! Just because he reprinted them exactly as Miller wrote them (even down to the misspelled words!) doesn't negate the 15 proofs Miller gave for proving the date (1843) for the second coming of Christ.

Did you ever take Adventist Herritage? I took it from Morris at Southern. Miller's 15 proofs for the second coming are 'common knowledge' in SDA circles, or at least they were, and they were discussed in that class too. Did you not grow up SDA?

Later, I taught too using SDA curriculum and they are still discussed in the books, especially when it comes to teaching the Sanctuary doctrine. I say they are discussed, but I never read all of the ACTUAL proofs until recently (nobody made them available to me and I did not seek them out). SDA's know about them, but most have probably not actually seen them or read them.

Why are you so resistant to having them presented?

Sorry, there's a big difference between "his" and the Millerites. By that standard we could accuse Einstien of having perpetated the Holocaust on the grounds that he was a German.

It is well documented that Miller was the leader of the Millerite movement. Are you trying to assert that he was not involved in the setting of the different dates?

And your point would be? How many did Amos have?

You did when you posted Arasola's interpretation.

I ONLY posted Miller's actual proofs. I'm the one asking questions or making statements at the bottom of each one. There are NO words from Arasola presented.

My point was that we need to get back to the primary source vs. using someone's interpretation of what the primary sourrce supposedly said.

They are ALL Miller's interpretation of the Bible, since they are all Miller's EXACT words. Please read them first, then make comments. Better yet, verify the sources before making accusations.

Why are you taking the focus off of the proofs themselves? It would quite easy for you to check to see if they're truly Miller's 15 proofs for the second coming of Christ in 1843.

 

[freeindeed2]

I went to http://www.earlysda.com/download.html and downloaded all 3 files on Wm.Miller. I found that none of them say "I prove it by the time given by Moses, in the 26th chapter of Leviticus, being seven times that the people of God are to be in bondage to the kingdoms of this world; or in Babylon, literal and mystical; which seven times cannot be undertsood less than seven times 360 revolutions of the earth in its orbit, making 2520 years." So, either Wm. Miller said it somewhere else (which we are not being told about), or he never said it.

BTW, you can also read ab't these "proofs" at http://www.truthorfables.com/Miller's_Time%20_Proved_15_Ways.htm; note that these were "compiled" (to put the best blush on it) from a variety of alleged sources.

I wasn't aware they were online. Thank you for the link!

Did you download 'Miller's Lectures' and check page 251? I didn't see 'Miller's Lectures' in the list you sent. Maybe that's why you didn't find it?