Seventh Day Adventists

[freeindeed2]

You illustrate my point yet again. How am I to engage in meaningful discussion with a supposed ex-pastor who erroneously calls the Investigative Judgment "the EGW IJ doctrine"? Your very first response is riddled with errors.

Just study it's history and you'll see EGW and her visions and writings at the heart of the evolving Sanctuary and IJ doctrines. If it's not an EGW doctrine, then why did it not exist before her visions and writings, and why have all theologians who have studied it rejected it? You may not like my wording, but I assure you that it passed the litmus test of EGW before becomming an official belief of the SDA church.

Firslty, the IJ is only part of a much broader doctrine taught by the Adventist church, and that is the Sanctuary Doctrine, which I'm sure you know. It follows out naturally from that.

I'm quite familiar with how the progression and evolution of both doctrines happened, as well as the motiviation for coming up with them.

Secondly, it is not an "EGW" doctrine: the main figures behind these doctrines are the Millerites who survived the Great Disappointment, returning to their Bibles and uncovering the real truth. Edson began their inquest, and EGW later confirmed their conclusions.

Good old Edson! In the midst of his disappointment for clearly NOT following warnings given in Scripture for setting dates for Christ's return, and in his grief, has his one and only 'vision' in the corn field, THE DAY AFTER! Oct. 23, 1844. Kind of strange, don't you think?

And then about two months later, EGW has her own 'vision', which was a 'confirming' vision. And the Sanctuary, IJ doctrine was born. And it changed and grew over time with different interpretations and applications attached to it at different times throughout its history. It's not the same today as it was after her vision, and even Miller rejected it. It's all documented in her writings through her vision, but most Adventists aren't aware of the changes over time, and they certainly don't teach that in their schools. I should know after 7 years in SDA universities/colleges taking theology.

I'm not going to start a debate on the ins and outs of the IJ and the fullness of Christ's atonement.

Good choice! It would never end. The debate has been going on since its inception.

That isn't what this thread is for. However, I would appreciate it if you at least present accurate facts when you attempt to discredit one of the pillars of Adventism.

Jesus should be the pillar of any Christian group. Study both sides of the Sanctuary/IJ and you'll see how it doesn't line up with Scripture.

I don't go to an Adventist college. I study Physics at Imperial College London.

Ooh! Physics! My favorite science I took while in college. Don't know that I would have majored in it though. I'm impressed!

 

[djconklin]

2300 days are not referred to as 2300 days in Daniel, but 2300 evenings and mornings. Evenings and mornings are specific and there is nothing to say that this can be taken to mean 2300 years.

Ah, actually it is evening/morning (singular--point us back to Creation--we do not know why, as far as I know). Since it is highly unlikely that all of the events described could be compressed into 2,300 literal days (6.3+ years) it is then more likely that these are prophetic days (i.e., literal years). Combine with that the prophecy ab't Christ coming (the 70 weeks) and starting both at the same time we end up with Christ comimng "on schedule" as it were and the 2,300 years extending down to 1844.

 

[djconklin]

What basis is there to say that Joel's prophecy will have a dual fulfillment?

As I recall because not all of Joel's prophecy was fulfilled at Pentecost. I haven't studied up on that. I'm terribly busy (not today!) proving that the anti-SDA critics lied about EGW's alleged plagiarism, see http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/David/index.html -- and that's only some of what I have done!

 

[djconklin]

Couldn't count them all. Southwestern, Southern, and Andrews. And even more at another non-SDA, Christian university. Eight and a half years in all.

All undergrad I take it.

 

[djconklin]

Originally Posted by djconklin
Hmm, she was 17 in 1844; how could she come after?

Huh? Ellen was declared to be a prophet AFTER 1844. Are you trying to establish that she was a prophet.

It's off topic from what you were claiming but:
1) Declared by whom?
2) Actually her critics prove she was a prophet by claiming she plagiarized from two books that hadn't even been printed when she wrote hers!

 

[djconklin]

Then why can't you quote me correctly?

I can only quote what you actually write--not what you are thinking after the fact.

 

[djconklin]

I study Physics at Imperial College London.

Ah, then maybe you can answer some questions about light in an expanding universe! We'll have to take it off forum tho'. Otherwise, we'll sink real quick--assuming most people aren't into science.

 

[djconklin]

as well as the motiviation for coming up with them.

Oh, wow! We have an infallible psychic in our midst!

ROFLMAO!

 

[Eila]

[/font]

Ah, actually it is evening/morning (singular--point us back to Creation--we do not know why, as far as I know). Since it is highly unlikely that all of the events described could be compressed into 2,300 literal days (6.3+ years) it is then more likely that these are prophetic days (i.e., literal years). Combine with that the prophecy ab't Christ coming (the 70 weeks) and starting both at the same time we end up with Christ comimng "on schedule" as it were and the 2,300 years extending down to 1844.

I believe the evening/morning connection is related to the evening and morning sacrifices since the prophecy is concerning sacrifices and the desecration of the temple. Where does it say that the 2300 evenings and mornings were 2300 years?

What is the rationale for starting the 2300 day prophecy at the same time as the 70 week prophecy?

 

[djconklin]

I believe the evening/morning connection is related to the evening and morning sacrifices

When the Bible writers talked about sacrifices they are refered to as morning/evening sacrifices. I prefer to believe that since the Bible writers were inspired by the HS then they were also consistent.

 

[Eila]

As I recall because not all of Joel's prophecy was fulfilled at Pentecost. I haven't studied up on that. I'm terribly busy (not today!) proving that the anti-SDA critics lied about EGW's alleged plagiarism, see http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/David/index.html -- and that's only some of what I have done!

Personally, I don't care if she plagarized or not. We are to judge everything by the Bible whether she copied it or not. If she didn't copy it I have problems. If she did copy it I have problems with what she copied and who she copied from

I was taught growing up that EGW said that the Bible was the greater light and that we should judge all things by the Bible. So that is what I did. What need was there for me to study her when I had the Bible? Although I didn't study her, I found out after I left the SDA church how many of my beliefs had been influenced by her teaching (i.e. her interpretation of a passage was what was taught).

Want to hear something ironic? I was a student at an SDA college taking a class called The Gospels. The irony was our assignments were to read EGW and find the answers to questions. I didn't think anything of it at the time, but looking back - why would a class on the Gospels be focused on something other than the Gospels? We were learning EGW's interpretation of the Gospels.

 

[Eila]

When the Bible writers talked about sacrifices they are refered to as morning/evening sacrifices. I prefer to believe that since the Bible writers were inspired by the HS then they were also consistent.

Are you saying that because it says evening and morning instead of morning and evening is it not talking about sacrifices?

Where is the consistency in the wording of weeks and evening/mornings? How can you use 1 day=1 year for both when the wording is different?

 

[djconklin]

Personally, I don't care if she plagarized or not. We are to judge everything by the Bible whether she copied it or not. If she didn't copy it I have problems. If she did copy it I have problems with what she copied and who she copied from

It is simply one of many claims that the critics against EGW and the SDA church bring up. I show that she didn't plagiarize and this calls into question all of the rest of their claims because they stated it so confidently when in fact they were dead wrong--this calls into question their thinking and reasoning ability. So, I can aks people: how many times are you going to let them lie to you before you realize that they are lying? I actrually shouldn't say that they are lying because it implies that they know what the truth is and just chose not to tell it. I suggest that they have no idea what the truth is and they not only don't care either, they don't know that they don't know--and they don't care about that either!

 

[djconklin]

Are you saying that because it says evening and morning instead of morning and evening is it not talking about sacrifices?

Correct, unless we wish to claim that the Bible writers were sloppy--which casts a reflection on the HS as well.

What need was there for me to study her when I had the Bible?

That's why as she said (paraphrasing) (and every SDA knows this) if you had read the bible like you were suppposed to you wouldn't need my writings.

I was a student at an SDA college taking a class called The Gospels.

Which college and who was the prof?

Since you've been raised as an SDA and have already been to college I don't need to answer the rest of your questions. You already know the answers.

 

[Eila]

That's why as she said (paraphrasing) (and every SDA knows this) if you had read the bible like you were suppposed to you wouldn't need my writings.

This is something I don't get. EGW's compiled writing were far more numerous than the books of the Bible. So why does anyone need EGW's writings if we have the Bible? If we should be reading the Bible instead then why not promote the Bible?

Which college and who was the prof?

Since you've been raised as an SDA and have already been to college I don't need to answer the rest of your questions. You already know the answers.

I don't wish to name names, but if you want to see the colleges I went to then you can see it in my profile page. It was one of those places. The professor was the head of the department if I remember correctly.

And yes, the Gospel class assignments were to read EGW chapters and fill out worksheets regarding what she said about them and the tests were relating to that as well.

Also, in academy we had weekly trips to the school library where we had to read EGW and write a report on what she said. This class was our Bible class.

I guess it doesn't make sense. If EGW is supposed to lead us to the Bible, if she desired us to read the Bible then why would Bible classes spend teaching time in EGW's writings instead of the Bible?

 

[freeindeed2]

And yes, the Gospel class assignments were to read EGW chapters and fill out worksheets regarding what she said about them and the tests were relating to that as well.

I remember something similar to this. Wow!

Also, in academy we had weekly trips to the school library where we had to read EGW and write a report on what she said. This class was our Bible class.

There was only ONE academy Bible class I took that did not involve extensive reading of EGW, and it's only because the teacher didn't follow the SDA curriculum. We read the Bible alone instead (I still have it right here), and even though I can see now that he tried to teach SDA beliefs through the Bible alone with all the hopping around 'proof-texts', it still made an impression on me that Jesus is enough, and the Bible is so much more than a false prophet could ever hope to be. It's like comparing the world's tallest building to the biggest hole in the ground!

I guess it doesn't make sense. If EGW is supposed to lead us to the Bible, if she desired us to read the Bible then why would Bible classes spend teaching time in EGW's writings instead of the Bible?

SDA's are stuck with her interpretations, issues, and problems. They CANNOT be open to any other truth than what she wrote about (unless they somehow get another prophet - of course Koresh said he was her successor based on her prophecies, so I guess it's possible they could, though unlikely seeing how that all ended). It's too bad too! It really restricts the Holy Spirit of God to what she wrote.

 

[djconklin]

I was a student at an SDA college taking a class called The Gospels. The irony was our assignments were to read EGW and find the answers to questions.

Name the college and the prof.

 

[djconklin]

Originally Posted by Eila
And yes, the Gospel class assignments were to read EGW chapters and fill out worksheets regarding what she said about them and the tests were relating to that as well.

I remember something similar to this. Wow!

Name the college and the prof.

 

[djconklin]

... it's only because the teacher didn't follow the SDA curriculum.

I had a lady friend who was a teacher and I helped her prepare for class and grade the papers--there was NO such thing as a "SDA curriculum." The schools MUST teach certain things per state rules--but, that was it.

 

[djconklin]

Quote:
I guess it doesn't make sense. If EGW is supposed to lead us to the Bible, if she desired us to read the Bible then why would Bible classes spend teaching time in EGW's writings instead of the Bible?
SDA's are stuck with her interpretations, issues, and problems. They CANNOT be open to any other truth than what she wrote about

PURE UNMITIGATED BUNK! Anyone going to any of our schools would know that. We even had a student (one that I know of) from another denomination attending our seminary at Andrews.