Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Over at CARM a critic (I'll let him be anonymous!) claimed that Dr. Bacchiocchi made so much money from his books that he could afford to buy a top of the line, turbo-charged, red Volvo (plus something else but I've forgotten). So, I sent Dr. Bacchiocchi an email and asked him about that. He said it was white and it was not turbo-charged. He also noted that he made more money as a real estate agent in Rome in 5 years than he has in the past 25 years as an SDA teacher and writer.
argument boils down to the fact that he disagrees with EGW on interpretation of history.'I differ from Ellen White, for example, on the origin of Sunday. She teaches that in the first centuries all Christians observed the Sabbath and it was largely through the efforts of Constantine that Sundaykeeping was adopted by many Christians in the fourth century. My research shows otherwise. If you read my essay HOW DID SUNDAYKEEPING BEGIN? which summarizes my dissertation, you will notice that I place the origin of Sundaykeeping by the time of the Emperor Hadrian, in A.D. 135.' ---"Fee Catholic Mailing List", Bacchiochi, Feb 8, 1997.
I have been looking at the plagiarism claim. In doing that I looked at GC. Dr. McAdams has shown that EGW used literary sources (legitimately!) and was not shown in vision each and every single detail mentioned in GC.
Yeah, let me see if I can dig up the stuff.
As to your statement, here is the intro to the GC where she mentions the use of historical sources for the sake of description:
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] The great events which have marked the progress of reform in past ages are matters of history, well known and universally acknowledged by the Protestant world; they are facts which none can gainsay. This history I have presented briefly, in accordance with the scope of the book, and the brevity which must necessarily be observed, the facts having been condensed into as little space as seemed consistent with [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] xii [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] a proper understanding of their application. In some cases where a historian has so grouped together events as to afford, in brief, a comprehensive view of the subject, or has summarized details in a convenient manner, his words have been quoted; but in some instances no specific credit has been given, since the quotations are not given for the purpose of citing that writer as authority, but because his statement affords a ready and forcible presentation of the subject. In narrating the experience and views of those carrying forward the work of reform in our own time, similar use has been made of their published works.[/FONT]
There would be less worries from everyone on plagarism if they had read what she said her method was from the start.
Clouding the water with facts is not clouding.
And if you are elevating our "traditional" teachings, are you upholding Scripture and history, or our own closely held tradition?
Bacchiocchi has doubtless convinced many of the Sabbath truth. but he is trying to make sure we don't use foolish arguments. (And hey, let's be honest, he wants to sell a book or two!).
So your argument boils down to the fact that he disagrees with EGW on interpretation of history.
Has it occured to you that EGW herself edited the GC to reflect new insights and mistaken sources on history?
Would she think that we should take her word without investigating the facts?
I don't recall seeing that yet--can you show me what you found (over on the "orphaned" plagiarism thread)??
Our belief on this is not based on EGW's writing. It only provides additional confirmation.
“We recognize that true religion is based on conscience and conviction. It is therefore to be our constant purpose that no selfish interest or temporal advantage shall draw any person to our communion and that no tie shall hold any member save the belief and conviction that in this way the true connection with Christ is found. If a change of conviction leads a member of our church to feel no longer in harmony with Seventh-day Adventist faith and practice, we recognize not only the right also the responsibility of that member to change, without opprobrium, religious affiliation in accord with belief." http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/other_documents/other_doc5.html
You claim to be a SDA pastor, however do not uphold the SDA doctrine you supposedly vowed to. By again singing the same tune of the anti-adventist on these issues, especially discrediting the Spirit of Prophecy, you have disqualified yourself of such claimed position. I'd like to know churches you attend to. Please IM them to me.
djconklin said:All Dr. Bacchiocchi is doing is shoving the change of the Sabbath back further in time. He is not denying that Constantine had a role in making it more popular, etc.
May I gently (Yes, I know I am the bull in a china shop) ask what are the issues with Ellen White that you have...If she made mistakes who doesnt, look at Peter when the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] crowed. If she is a fraud it would be self evident and all of her writings would be invalid, and I have read what she wrote and she is strong with the Holy Spirit when it comes to the truths which she builds up and presents, and she is very strong with the Spirit when it comes to her central points, God doesnt change or make mistakes as he knows the end and the begining and neither does His Holy Spirit err. So the weakest link is at the end of the communication chain and we know we are fallible, even if God unfolds understanding for our eyes to see.......
Bacchiocchi is not an anti-adventist.
I am currently discussing now when Mrs. White approved revision of historical material.
Your charges are simply not based in fact. My wife has expressed her doubts regarding Mrs. White. I don't know as I have reached any conclusion on that yet. I see some things I have questions on. But I have made no rejection of her. Nor has Icedragon, etc.
You seem to want to silence any discussion on these issues for the sake of doctrinal purity. Will that sense of false purity stop droves from leaving the church every month due to these issues? I dont' think so.
And you have still given no response to the arguments raised by early documents that all sides admit exist.
I have made it as plain to you as possible that I am firmly convinced that the Sabbath was there throughout the early church. Nor have I said anything about rejecting our traditional view of the anti-christ. For that matter my wife still believes our traditional view of the anti-christ. But discussing specifics is not heresy, plain and simple.
What I objected to was your use of the text of the prophecy as EVIDENCE, when it is evidence that shows the truth of the prophecy.
There are also some misleading conclusions in stating that Bacchiocchi, or anyone else who makes reference to earlier works are anti-Adventist.
There is no evidence that the pope originated Sunday keeping or getting rid of the Sabbath. Note again
The way we have presented it in the past has been too simplistic and fails to convince those who know history. That is the point.
I didn't say Bacchiocchi is anti-adventist. I'm saying you are presenting arguments used by anti-adventists.
Please have some integrity and responsibility as stated in the official adventist link I quoted for you. When your conviction changes, you should change your religious affilliation.
Even if you are contemplating, you should step down from the position you claimed. I'm asking what churches you attend to if you can not demonstrate such integrity. I'd like to hear what the conference has to say which employs you.
TrustandObey said:Sophia, I like you as a person and I respect you as a moderator. However, this is a little too personal for you to be unbiased.
I personally agree with OntheDL on some of the points he's made.
I don't think he should feel threatened that now a moderator has stepped in, and I really do NOT believe this should be about taking sides since I really don't even know OntheDL.
I do, however, feel that you shouldn't be a moderator in this forum if it's earnestly "to be a place where differing opinions are welcomed" (I saw that in another thread), since obviously it's starting to look a little one-sided about WHOSE differing opinion is allowed.
God bless,
~Lainie
I am speaking here not as a moderator, but as a wife whose husband's integrity has been questioned. I don't claim to be unbiased on that. I have a right to state my opinions as well.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?