Thoughts?

[LogosRhema]

I did some research. I'm not out to debunk SDA. I want to better understand the thought process. But here's a list of things someone made and they are all good points, but I don't want to hear from just one side, so please help me out here. What are your thoughts on these comments?

Taken from: http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day-Adventists-2318/Seventh-day-Adventist-religion.htm?zIr=5

EGW says: The plan of salvation was made before the Fall (Great Controversy [GC], p.347).
The BIBLE says: The plan of salvation was made “before the world began” (II Timothy 1:9).

EGW says: Adam was deceived (GC, p.352, 1885 ed.).
The BIBLE says: :It was not Adam who was deceived” (I Timothy 2:14).

EGW says: The Tower of Babel was built before the Flood (Spiritual Gifts [SG], vol. 3, p.301).
The BIBLE says: The Tower of Babel was built after the Flood (see Genesis 11:1-9).

EGW says: Some species of animals were not allowed into the ark (SG, vol. 3, p.15).
The BIBLE says: “Of all the living creatures you shall bring two into the ark” (Genesis 6:19).

EGW says: Not everything outside the ark died (SG, vol. 1, p.77).
The BIBLE says: “…everything on earth shall die” (Genesis 6:17).

EGW says: Noah ate only the flesh of clean animals (Patriarchs and Prophets [P&P], p.107).
The BIBLE says: “Every creature that is alive shall be yours to eat” (Genesis 9:3).

EGW says: Pharaoh's magicians did not turn their rods into snakes (SG, vol. 3, p.205-6).
The BIBLE says: The magicians did turn their rods into snakes (see Exodus 7:8-12).

EGW says: Slaves cannot be saved (SG, vol. 1, p.193; Early Writings [EW], p.276).
The BIBLE says: Slaves may be saved (see I Corinthians 12:13; Galatians 3:28).

EGW says: The Ten Commandments were written on only one side of the tablets (EW, p.32).
The BIBLE says: The Ten Commandments “were written on both sides, front and back” (Exodus 32:15).

EGW says: Jesus did not choose Judas (Desire of Ages [DA], p.293).
The BIBLE says: “Jesus replied, ‘Did I not choose the Twelve of you myself?'” (John 6:70).

EGW says: The Atonement was not finished at Calvary (Testimonies for the Church [TC], vol. 1, p.58; GC, p.422, 623).
The BIBLE says: The Atonement was finished at Calvary (see John 19:30; Hebrews 10:12).

EGW says: The blood of Christ doesn't cancel our sins (P&P, p. 357).
The BIBLE says: “The blood of His Son cleanses us of all sin” (I John 1:7; see also Romans 5:9; Ephesians 1:7; Hebrews 13:12).

EGW says: Jesus' bones were broken during the Crucifixion (SG, vol. 1, p58).
The BIBLE says: Jesus' bones were not broken (see John 19:33, 36).

EGW says: We are reconciled to God through obedience to the Law (TC, vol. 4, p.294).
The BIBLE says: “…we were reconciled to Him by the death of His Son” (Romans 5:10; see also II Corinthians 5:18; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8-9).

EGW says: The seal of God is the keeping of the 7th day Sabbath (TC, vol. 8, p.117; GC, p.640).
The BIBLE says: The seal of God is the Holy Spirit (see II Corinthians 1:21-22; Ephesians 1:13; 4:30).

Considering EGW is the source from which your belief is inspired from, are these comments accurate? Thoughts?

 

[TrustAndObey]

Considering EGW is the source from which your belief is inspired from, are these comments accurate? Thoughts?

The source our beliefs are inspired from are the Holy Scriptures, the inspired Word of God. I've never read an Ellen White book.

Thank you for coming to people that know the doctrine/beliefs instead of just taking some hate site's word for it.

However, this is the fellowship part of our forum, and this topic will likely lead to debate. Could you please PM thecountrydoc, reddogs, or darylfawcett and ask that your thread be moved to the Debate and Discussion subforum?

God bless!

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

The problem with the list is that it is too simplistic and sort of based upon the proof text method of interpretation which is frankly illogical.

For Instance:

EGW says: Not everything outside the ark died (SG, vol. 1, p.77).
The BIBLE says: “…everything on earth shall die” (Genesis 6:17).

Did Noah take whales and multitudes of fish on the ark? If we use the Bible verse section from the above we would have to assume that the ark was filled with aquariums to continue the aquatic species.

Of course you already have numbers of animals that would be an impossibility for the Ark size and that is without assuming that aquatic species were included or dinosaurs either.

So the problem here is not so much a disagreement of the Bible and EGW as with irrational assumptions about the flood story. And using those things to show EGW is wrong. Some of them like this one:

EGW says: Noah ate only the flesh of clean animals (Patriarchs and Prophets [P&P], p.107).
The BIBLE says: “Every creature that is alive shall be yours to eat” (Genesis 9:3).

If you read the surrounding verses of the quote used in Genesis you see that within two verses it talks about the clean and unclean animals used for food.

Ultimately it is simply a poorly done comparison based upon faulty assumptions and not even caring about the Biblical context.

*The views expressed here are those of a Progressive Adventist and may not reflect those of Traditional Adventists, Roman Catholics Buddhists, illiterates or those who are afraid to question beliefs.

T&O is that a good enough disclaimer for you? When I get a good one I will use it as my signature line.

 

[Lebesgue]

[/color]

The source our beliefs are inspired from are the Holy Scriptures, the inspired Word of God. I've never read an Ellen White book.

Thank you for coming to people that know the doctrine/beliefs instead of just taking some hate site's word for it.

However, this is the fellowship part of our forum, and this topic will likely lead to debate. Could you please PM thecountrydoc, reddogs, or darylfawcett and ask that your thread be moved to the Debate and Discussion subforum?

God bless!

You are a lot like my dear wife(who I love more than anyone other than Jesus)who is a 3rd Generation SDA and has NEVER read an EGW book.

Good for you! You obviously stick with the Word only and I give you major props for that!

Shalom,

Lebesgue

 

[TrustAndObey]

RC, I don't mind saying that your post rocked and your disclaimer was beautiful and shiny new!

 

[TrustAndObey]

I have to know scripture before I can "test the spirits" Lebesgue.

That may be never, or it may be soon, it all depends on what wisdom the Holy Spirit wants me to have at this point in my life.

 

[TrustAndObey]

*The views expressed here are those of a Progressive Adventist and may not reflect those of Traditional Adventists, Roman Catholics Buddhists, illiterates or those who are afraid to question beliefs.

You are a very witty man RC. Not too many of the intelligent types can claim that.

I think this is the first time you really did make me "LOL".

 

[reddogs]

The problem with the list is that it is too simplistic and sort of based upon the proof text method of interpretation which is frankly illogical.

For Instance:


Did Noah take whales and multitudes of fish on the ark? If we use the Bible verse section from the above we would have to assume that the ark was filled with aquariums to continue the aquatic species.

Of course you already have numbers of animals that would be an impossibility for the Ark size and that is without assuming that aquatic species were included or dinosaurs either.

So the problem here is not so much a disagreement of the Bible and EGW as with irrational assumptions about the flood story. And using those things to show EGW is wrong. Some of them like this one:



If you read the surrounding verses of the quote used in Genesis you see that within two verses it talks about the clean and unclean animals used for food.

Ultimately it is simply a poorly done comparison based upon faulty assumptions and not even caring about the Biblical context.

*The views expressed here are those of a Progressive Adventist and may not reflect those of Traditional Adventists, Roman Catholics Buddhists, illiterates or those who are afraid to question beliefs.

T&O is that a good enough disclaimer for you? When I get a good one I will use it as my signature line.

RC, that disclaimer is enough to make me say "if I had a daughter I would be proud to have you as a son-in-law"....

 

[TrustAndObey]

Shouldn't we move this thread reddogs?

There's a site that I found not too long ago about all the discrepancies in scripture where two prophets seem to completely contradict each other, and the ones I looked over were the same as RC described. Way out of context.

I liked RC's aquarium comment. I hadn't thought about that before.

 

[RND]

If you read the surrounding verses of the quote used in Genesis you see that within two verses it talks about the clean and unclean animals used for food.

No it doesn't! Thats a ridiculous assumption.

If Noah had two pigs and ate one for breakfast so he could have bacon and Jimmy Dean Sausage with his toast and eggs, how many pigs would Noah have had left over and how would those animals have proceated to make more?

You have to "assume" Noah ate unclean animals, not because the Bible says.

"There is no clear statement as to when God first revealed the difference between those animals that are designated "clean" and those that are not. The absence of a clear command on this matter should not be taken as proof that no instruction was given. There are few clear commands in the early pages of the Bible, but the examples that are recorded reveal that standards of right and wrong were clearly understood. For example, there is no clear command against murder before Cain's murder of his brother, Abel, but no one would conclude that murder was therefore acceptable before this point. The book of Genesis can be described as a book of beginnings. This book was written by Moses to provide a historical record of what took place, not as a book of laws. Readers should not assume that the law has not been in existence from the beginning.

The first statement in Scripture concerning "clean" and ìuncleanî animals is found in Genesis 7:2, where Noah is commanded to take seven (or seven pairs of) clean animals and only one pair of unclean animals. When God told Noah to build a giant ark, He gave explicit instructions on its size, composition and design, yet God saw no need to instruct Noah about which creatures were clean and which were unclean. God's instruction and Noah's response clearly indicate that Noah understood which creatures were clean and which were not.

At the conclusion of the great flood, God told Noah: "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs" (Genesis 9:3). The point being made in the preceding verse is that, even though there were few men left alive, and large and dangerous animals had been preserved, Noah and his family had no need to fear these animals. Verse 3 shows that the animals were to be for man's benefit. They were given into man's control in the same way the green plants were given. Some green plants are suitable for food, some are suitable for building materials, some are for beautification and enjoyment, and some are poisonous and can sicken and bring death when ingested. In the same way, some animals are useful for providing food, while others provide fibers for clothing, strength for working the land or protection from dangers.

Whenever animals are mentioned in Scripture as a food source or in connection with sacrifice before Mount Sinai, they are invariably clean animals (Genesis 15:9 -- cow, goat, sheep, dove and pigeon; Genesis 22:13 -- sheep; Exodus 12:5ñsheep or goat). The law of clean and unclean meats clearly predates the Old Covenant, regardless of what role they may have played within that covenant."

 

[RND]

I did some research.

All Experts is "research?"

I'm not out to debunk SDA.

Can't

I want to better understand the thought process.

Ask for wisdom.

What are your thoughts on these comments?

Not worth addressing.

Considering EGW is the source from which your belief is inspired from, are these comments accurate? Thoughts?

That's a rather blanket statement in that it assumes one could not have received thoughts inspired by the scriptures or the Holy Spirit.

I believed in the sabbath and state of the dead long before I heard of EGW.

 

[reddogs]

I've gone ahead and moved this thread to the more appropriate D/D subforum for more open discussion.


Red
Seventh-Day Adventist Forum Moderator

 

[RND]

I've gone ahead and moved this thread to the more appropriate D/D subforum for more open discussion.


Red
Seventh-Day Adventist Forum Moderator

"Isn't that spe......"

Opps!

You're a good man Charlie Brown!

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

No it doesn't! Thats a ridiculous assumption.

Yes I over did it by saying within two verses if we count backward from the verse used in the quote Gen 9:3 to the reference about offering clean animals it is a total of 6 verses. Of course it does not say if he ate clean or unclean and the story was written after Sinai and the subject of clean and unclean had been given but from the writers perspective there was clearly a difference between clean and unclean animals and that difference as we saw in other writings is about what can be used for food. In any case it shows a problem using that one verse in Genesis 9 to show that man can eat any animal and EGW saying they only ate clean animals.

[SIZE=-0][SIZE=-0] (NASB) Genesis 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. 2 "The fear of you and the terror of you will be on every beast of the earth and on every bird of the sky; with everything that creeps on the ground, and all the fish of the sea, into your hand they are given. 3 "Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant. 4 "Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. [/SIZE][/SIZE]

A few verses earlier

[SIZE=-0][SIZE=-0] 19 Every beast, every creeping thing, and every bird, everything that moves on the earth, went out by their families from the ark. 20 Then Noah built an altar to the LORD, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar. 21 The LORD smelled the soothing aroma; and the LORD said to Himself, "I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man's heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done. 22 "While the earth remains, Seedtime and harvest, And cold and heat, And summer and winter, And day and night Shall not cease."[/SIZE][/SIZE]

:

 

[GoodnightEternal]

I did some research.

Do some more! http://www.ellengwhite.info/criticisms.htm

 

[NightEternal]

Oh come on already! Mods, are you sleeping or something?

Sock puppet baiting harassment. Can I get something done here or what?!

And yes, I tried to report him, but his account won't allow reports.

 

[RND]

Do some more! http://www.ellengwhite.info/criticisms.htm

 

[RND]

I'm glad you find it humorous RND.

I was smiling at the "Do some more..." take. Not laughing at you Night. Be easy.

 

[LogosRhema]

I'll read that other site here in a day or so, got some homework to do :S.

I'm not baiting harassment, but believe what you will.

PS: Sorry my questions aren't worth your time RND. Perhaps someone else will find the questions worthy of answering.

I'm here to understand the doctrine, not create harassment. I have no opinion. I've said no opinion. I have only questions. If you don't have answers you are more than welcome to read along, but please don't start this into something it isn't. Thanks.

 

[djconklin]

Sorry my questions aren't worth your time RND. Perhaps someone else will find the questions worthy of answering.

It's not that your questions aren't worth our time--it is the fact that these questions have already been answered over and over and over again. it gets quite frustrating after awhile when someone "researches" by visiting some anti-SDA/EGW website and then comes here with the same old questions. To them this is new, but to us it is quite stale.

Try this site:

"Did Ellen White Contradict the Bible Over 50 Times" @ http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/contradictions.html

It turns out that most, if not all, of these alleged contradictions were created by people with such an axe to grind that they see what they want to see vs. seeing what the texts actually say.* And, of course, one cannot think any better or clearer than one can read.

*The Bible critics have the same problem.

On another forum a guy claimed that EGW had contradicted Scripture 75 times. When I pointed out to him that the number was 53 he claimed that it was my research that was outdated. But, despite repeated requests to produce the extra 22 he never did and ultimately turned tail and ran.