SDA please explain the failed prediction of Ellen White (SDA Prophet)

[BobRyan]

Again ... when someone goes outside His Written Word .... they should carefully compare that with it ... this was Ms. Whites continuous belief and stated this many many times ... and is solid biblical advice.

true.

 

[BobRyan]

I don't feel one bit sorry for exposing them or bringing this up.

I don't feel bad about debunking your failed accusations either.

I see this as a win-win.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

I don't feel bad about debunking your failed accusations either.

I see this as a win-win.

you're loosing in the polls and the battle of preception. when it matters. preception is influence.

 

[Leaf473]

For anyone who's interested,

I was wondering if the official website had anything about testing for a true prophet.

I found this.
"4. If they do make predictions, they must come to pass as spoken (Jeremiah 28:9; Deuteronomy 18:22)."

Understanding Prophets: A Biblical Perspective | adventist.org

There’s no one-size-fits-all description for what every prophet is like or what they’re called to do. Here’s how God can use ordinary people to do powerful

www.adventist.org

Is there anything on the official website about conditional prophecies? I haven't found anything yet.

 

[BobRyan]

I found this.
"4. If they do make predictions, they must come to pass as spoken (Jeremiah 28:9; Deuteronomy 18:22)."

Understanding Prophets: A Biblical Perspective | adventist.org

There’s no one-size-fits-all description for what every prophet is like or what they’re called to do. Here’s how God can use ordinary people to do powerful

www.adventist.org

Could be "Bent" to say "Jonah was a false prophet" if one took that statement far enough out of context.

I guess we all knew that.

Is there anything on the official website about conditional prophecies? I haven't found anything yet.

There is a thing or two in the Bible about it Jer 18 -- and no SDA statement opposing Jeremiah 18 - as it turns out.

 

[BobRyan]

you're loosing in the polls

Have you looked recently?? as of now it is 50% yes you were debunked and 33% no you were not.

and the battle of preception. when it matters. preception is influence.

 

[BobRyan]

It's not everybody else's fault that the people who support Ellen White support her they're not victims it's their fault.

(feel free to edit your statement to make it legible)

BTW -- You are the one with this "all--ellen-white-all-the-time" topic thread , not the SDAs here -- did you forget??

it stands on it's own. Since this is the first Thread in over 10 years on the topic your statement is baseless.

Your thread sure looks "all-ellen-white-all-the-time" to me - and it has your name on it.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Have you looked recently?? as of now it is 50% yes you were debunked and 33% no you were not.

bob, you have not factored in that you and SB already believers. The poll is not directed to you. We know that you are not going to change your mind so your votes are null. you can nullify my vote if you wish. that would make you behind. those who have never believed are less likely to believe.

You are under the mistaken notion that if you post a counterpoint that it is automatically a neutralizes the objection or criticism. It does not. the evidence must be weighed and evaluated. When that is factored in you are behind. Way behind, because what it is doing is showing everyone how you think and how you respond, it is exposing your motives and tactics. People can see how you go about your business. That is why you are behind.

If you think that people are not evaluating that you are sadly mistaken. The defense is weak at best. People are scratching their heads saying "why don't they just admit she is not what she says she is and just move on, it is one less thing to defend." They can see it and they can see you. That is what I want them to see. How far the EGW'er will go to twist facts, deny reality and be stubborn. They love Ellen more then Jesus. They love Ellen more then the Truth. Jesus must submit to Ellen according to them, not Ellen to Jesus. Most non-sda's do not know how deep the connection is and how much it effects the thinking of SDA's that is why I am doing this. I want them to see what they are dealing with. until She is dealt with they will not gain any ground. once she has been dealt with then SDA's are forced to deal with reality and must go were the evidence says it suppose to go.

That is what happened to me. Ellen dropped first. then I had to find out what the "truth" was because the "TRUTH" is such a big deal in Adventism, They have the "truth" we are right and everyone else is wrong. That is why this is such a big deal. SDAism whole premise we have more light and more knowledge then the Fallen Apostate Chrisitian world. Well that is either true or false. That is what make this deception so bad and so egreious. They claim to be better and the leaders KNOW it is a LIE. They are not wrong about every thing and have some very good ideas but they are wrong on a lot.

 

[Gary K]

you don't believe in Sola scriptura, you believe in Sola scriptura + EGW. You actually believe in EGW + Sola scriptura. Because you consult her to interpret scripture. You can't defend your position without consulting egw.

Now as to the accusation, of having to have a discussion about EG white all the time. This is just false. This is shifting the blame and the responsibility. EG whites claim an additional source of authority but don't tell people that. when we catch them consulting that authority over the Bible they scream that we want to talk about her all the time. That is dishonest. They will get called on that every time. They don't want to play fair Bob, they want a free pass. That is not going to happen. They will play by the same rules as everybody else. And that is that or they will be called on it.

As far as wanting to talk about EG White. I have made it a purpose not to talk about her unless it's brought up or it someone is affecting the text with her. Since EG White'ers bring her up all the time, it may appear to you that l talk to about her all the time. But I don't, it's only when they bring her up.

Except for this weekend, This is the first time I have Actually posted on Ellen White in over a decade.

Hmmmm. Seems to me you and I had a discussion about SDA doctrines and you failed miserably. I provided a link to the SDA 28 fundamental beliefs and you failed to copy and paste out of it the proof of your assertions. Now you're back again with more baseless attacks. Then you claimed to have attended Andrews and knew all about SDA beliefs. You have nothing but the same kind of "evidence" this time too. If I was you I'd hang my head in shame at being caught in such obvious lies.

 

[Gary K]

FAILED accusation #9

#9 MRS. WHITE SAID THAT WE HAVE ANIMAL ORGANS IN OUR BRAINS AND THE WEARING OF WIGS WOULD CAUSE INSANITY​

Just as the words "gay" and "nice" have changed their meaning over time - so also the use of the term "animal" is different today than when Ellen White used the term - and we all know it
.
She uses the term for basic-biology vs the higher moral powers of the brain. The higher nature.

From: 2014​

Researchers Find Human Conscience: Part of Brain Differentiating Right and Wrong - LifeNews.com

I have long argued that the difference in humans is moral in nature, not merely biological. But that doesn’t mean that some or all of what makes us unique doesn’t arise out of unique biological differences between us and all other known life. Scientists have apparently discovered a region in the...

www.lifenews.com

​

“This is about the brain’s connection to morality. This means that the Oxford scientists, without apparently realising what they’ve done, have located the conscience.​

​

“One, it’s called the lateral frontal pole. Two, it’s unique to humans – they ran tests on monkeys in the course of the research at Oxford and, nope, they don’t have it. Three, it’s the size of “a large Brussels sprout”. And four, it’s a leap beyond current scientific knowledge into realms that can only be described as spooky.”​

If your argument is that all of your biological brain is confined to the part responsible for morality, conscience , values of right vs wrong - feel free to keep digging that hole deeper.

Actually this information about the frontal lobe of the brain was discovered in the 1800s. A guy working on building one of the canals in New Yoek state was tamping a powder charge down with a steel bar and inadvertently hit it too hard and set off the dynamite. The bar was driven upwards thrpugh the frontal lobe of his brain and when he had physically healed his character had completely changed. He went from being a sober man, a loving husband and devoted father to someone who was addicted to gambling and no longer cared to support his family and an alcoholic who left his family behind and moved to South America and eventually drank himself to death.

 

[Leaf473]

Could be "Bent" to say "Jonah was a false prophet" if one took that statement far enough out of context.

I guess we all knew that.

What leads us to believe that Jonah was a true prophet, using the guidelines on the official SDA website?

There is a thing or two in the Bible about it Jer 18 -- and no SDA statement opposing Jeremiah 18 - as it turns out.

Okay, no statement on the official site explaining how to apply conditional prophecies to part 4 of their test.

 

[Leaf473]

I just voted No in the poll.

I'm understanding the poll question this way:
Do you think that the response (post #3) to the original post (post #1 and the supporting post #2) has debunked the objections to EGW

The reason I voted No is that post #3 doesn't address the prophecy about Jerusalem not being built up, and it appears that prediction did not come come to pass as spoken.

 

[BobRyan]

What leads us to believe that Jonah was a true prophet, using the guidelines on the official SDA website?

Sola scriptura testing - and the fact that we accept Jeremiah 18 as inspired writing as it teaches about conditional prophecy.

I guess we all knew that.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Hmmmm. Seems to me you and I had a discussion about SDA doctrines and you failed miserably. I provided a link to the SDA 28 fundamental beliefs and you failed to copy and paste out of it the proof of your assertions. Now you're back again with more baseless attacks. Then you claimed to have attended Andrews and knew all about SDA beliefs. You have nothing but the same kind of "evidence" this time too. If I was you I'd hang my head in shame at being caught in such obvious lies.

you clearly are talking about someone else, because I never attended Andrews University. your memory is faulty. You are here to support your buddy. you are just trying to fight. I did attend PUC & Union College. I hoId a degree in SDA Theology. I also have lived in Loma LInda, Collegdale, Keene, & Riverside. I was rasided on Auther Maxwell's, "The Bible Stories" and The "Bible in Living Sound". I can tell you what stripples are, fri chick, Special K loaf and HayStacks are. I can tell you what protecting the "edges of the Sabbath" mean. I can tell you what a Ruskett is.

I grew up in Major SDA centers, I was born 5 miles from the place where J.N Loughbourh came and conducted his the first evangelist crusade west of the Rockies in Bloomfield, CA it was a health lecture. I used to drive by the lot were EGW's house in Healdsburg CA on my way to" Pacific Leasure" which used to be called Harris Pine Mills.

If you want I will list all the SDA school's I have Attended. Loma Linda Elementry, Fairview Jr. Academy. Redwood Jr. Academy, Rio Lindo Academy. When I was at PUC, the faculty were, Ivan Blazen, Warren Ashworth, Carl Coffmen, Fred Veltman, John McVay, Greg King, Jean Sheldon, Ginger Hanks-Harwood, Donald John and Perry Tchkuch & Gerald Winslow. The Seinor Pastor was Louis Venden and the Chaplin was Marc Dunn and Keith Jacobsen. I liven on the hill in NIchol Hall the dean was Jim Boyd, the head RA's Were Jim Lorenz and Charles Hartman. My family member just retired from the SDA pastorate at PUC.

When I attended at Union. The Religion faculty was Sig Roske, Tony Minear, Tom Shepard, Ward Hill, Betirice Neil and Victor Brown Roger Lucas. While I was there since I live there for a long time the Factulty replaced Lucaus, Roske, brown Neil & MInear, then Added Sylvester Case, Ed Allen, Bob Fetrick and one other person at the time. The Chaplin Was Rich Carlson the Seinor Pastors that were there Greg Nelson (brother of Dwight Nelson), Dan Goddered, Keith Jacobsen, Ron Halverson Jr. Dan Goddered died about 2 years in.

I was baptizied as a result of a Doug Bathclor crusade in 1987. It was the Crusade in which John Lomacang came out from Flordia. Doug talked him up real big, Doug was Driving a Brown Nissan Pathfinder and John was driving a White Toyota Forerunner with silver running boards on the side.

Now do you need more. My SDA credibility and Linage is impecible, and my memory is just fine. you clearly don't know what you are talking about. Tall73 & Sophia7 can verify my time at Union. that is how we know each other.

 

[BobRyan]

I just voted No in the poll.

I'm understanding the poll question this way:
Do you think that the response (post #3) to the original post (post #1 and the supporting post #2) has debunked the objections to EGW

The reason I voted No is that post #3 doesn't address the prophecy about Jerusalem not being built up, and it appears that prediction did not come come to pass as spoken.

Ok --- sounds good.

how about this ( I will add this to one of my page 1 posts)
==============================
Exposing failed accusation #1 in post: #56
Exposing failed accusation #2 in post: #3
Exposing failed accusation #3 in post: #3
Exposing failed accusation #4 in post: #3
Exposing failed accusation #5 in post: #5 #58
Exposing failed accusation #6 in post: #3 #16
Exposing failed accusation #7 in post: #3 #16
Exposing failed accusation #8 in post: #3 #40 – #8 is same as accusation #5 but with more detail
Exposing failed accusation #9 in post: #61

 

[BobRyan]

bob, you have not factored in that you and SB already believers.

It "appears" that you don't understand "the basics" about your topic "Which is not designed to convert or convince anyone in favor of Ellen White".

We don't debunk your false accusations as a way to convince people that Ellen White is a prophet -- obviously. Neither do we use that method when talking to anyone in Bible studies about the Biblical teaching on spiritual gifts, the gift of prophecy or the history regarding Ellen White's messages. As those who actually engage in those Bible studies would know.

We only debunk your false accusations as a public test of those failed accusations so they can be seen as either substantive or fluff-hay-straw-stubble.

I don't see how the basics are getting past you.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Ok --- sounds good.

how about this ( I will add this to one of my page 1 posts)
==============================
Exposing failed accusation #1 in post: #56
Exposing failed accusation #2 in post: #3
Exposing failed accusation #3 in post: #3
Exposing failed accusation #4 in post: #3
Exposing failed accusation #5 in post: #5 #58
Exposing failed accusation #6 in post: #3 #16
Exposing failed accusation #7 in post: #3 #16
Exposing failed accusation #8 in post: #3 #40 – #8 is same as accusation #5 but with more detail
Exposing failed accusation #9 in post: #61

bob, simply giving an answer does not mean you have defeated the objection. You have to give a credible response to the objection. you have not. you have only demonstrated that you can rationalize a failuer and that is what everyone sees. it is clear to everyone else bob. The thing is you don't need her. the SDA chruch is 80% right, the other 20 percent that is wrong is locked into place by EGW. Get rid of her and we make the adjustment and never have to deal with this again.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

hey non-sda's

Do you see what the Ellen whiter's are doing
1. they are now attacking people personally and trying to get away from the evidence called "Shifting the Focus". Evidence that everyone should be aware of. Do you see that?

2. Now they are claiming victory when no victory has been won. Do you see that?

3. The are attacking people making it about credientials & crediblity. They will go so far as to lie about people and make up stuff about people. Do you see that.

4. They are attacking the motives all for bringing up bacis facts about EGW. You are not allowed to question the authority of the Prophet. Even in the face of massive failuers. Trying to be faithful to Jesus is not allowed. you must be faithful to Ellen at all Cost. Even if it mean disobey Christ. Can you see that.

5. Denying that the facts are the facts. no EGW didn't fail it's all in your mind. you are wrong not her. who are you going to believe Ellen or your lying eyes. Do you see that.

That has to go. That has to stop. the only way it will stop is when she is no longer considered a prophet.

 

[BobRyan]

bob, simply giving an answer does not mean you have defeated the objection.

The details are what determine that and those details are available at the links. I am happy with the fact that everyone can read.

else bob. The thing is you don't need her. the SDA chruch is 80% right,

As I have stated repeatedly - we make all of our doctrinal arguments "sola scriptura" for the 28 fundamental beliefs.

 

[The Liturgist]

Actually this information about the frontal lobe of the brain was discovered in the 1800s. A guy working on building one of the canals in New Yoek state was tamping a powder charge down with a steel bar and inadvertently hit it too hard and set off the dynamite. The bar was driven upwards thrpugh the frontal lobe of his brain and when he had physically healed his character had completely changed. He went from being a sober man, a loving husband and devoted father to someone who was addicted to gambling and no longer cared to support his family and an alcoholic who left his family behind and moved to South America and eventually drank himself to death.

I fail to see how that proves anything, since if EGW did claim that the wearing of wigs would cause insanity, that information is known to be inaccurate. On the other hand, having a steel bar driven straight through your brain will cause damage, however, the remarks made about a failure of his moral character are not justified since the change in the personality of Mr. Gauge was due to a physical injury, brain damage, as opposed to any kind of personality disorder or character flaw. I would further note his use of alcohol could well have been due to reasons of pain, and the lack of availability of proper pain management, given his serious injury. It is worth noting that in the early 19th century before the widespread use of morphine and ether for analgesiac and anaesthetic purposes began, anaesthesiology did not exist as a discipline, and pain management was frequently accomplished using strong liquor. This fact makes me regard as particularly cruel early advocates of the temperance movement - it is fine to advocate for abstinence from alcohol now that we have medicine to treat pain and medicine to treat alcohol addicition and safe drinking water, but in the mid 19th century, temperance was actually dangerous in many contexts, owing to the antiseptic and analgesic properties of alcohol.

I would also note that if it was claimed by EGW that scripture teaches that consuming alcohol is inherently sinful, and i really hope she didn’t say that, that would also be an error, as my friend @MarkRohfrietsch who like me is an enthusiast of gourmet beer would attest (unfortunately, due to a health problem not caused by alcohol consumption but rather probably caused by a hereditary disease, I am no longer able to easily consume more than a sip of alcohol, although my doctors are working on it and the problem does not appear to be due to a liver defect or damage, as I have never consumed much tylenol and I have never been drunk in my life, indeed on the one occasion when I did try to get drunk, which was a sin, by the way, I failed as I was stopped by a headache and gastrointestinal discomfort while trying to drink a bottle of cheap vodka, so alas, I have never been drunk and only twice have I experienced any kind of euphoria that I could associate with drinking alcohol, on both occasions while being entertained by a friend I was in business with).

Also, to reiterate, as I said at the beginning of this post, there is no evidence that wearing wigs causes insanity, and if EGW made that claim, she was in error. I am not familiar with whether or not she said that, but if anyone really believes that, considering that there are charities like Locks of Love which donate wigs for the use of children who have cancer and are receiving chemotherapy, and also many women suffer hair loss and wear wigs, and also many men who have had injuries to their scalps, I really just can’t object to it on any moral grounds at all and there is no evidence it causes insanity. So I am assuming that EGW did not say that but was rather making the sophisticated argument that @BobRyan referred to.