Was Ellen White Really a False Prophet--2?

[woobadooba]

The infallible inspired Word of God is the very basis of my Christian walk. If I find an error it is with me, not the Word of God.

These pretty much sums up my viewpoint

John 1 " 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

2 Timothy 3 "16All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,"

Where in the Bible does it say the Holy Scriptures are inspired word by word, as in every word being exactly what God wanted it to be to express His thought?

Again, was it God's choice word for David to use the word "hate" in describing how He felt about His enemies?

 

[freeindeed2]

We don't believe the Bible contains many errors. We believe that the Bible does contain some errors. There is a difference.

And we don't capitalize on these errors to prove that Ellen White was inspired. Those of us who understand these things are merely trying to open people's eyes to the nature of inspiration.

With all due respect, the SDA church holds and teaches this view for a reason- an attempt to make the gross errors of their prophet sound more palettable. I believed the SDA view of inspiration for a few decades too, but from where I'm standing now it's easy to see why the Bible must be put down by SDAism. It makes it easier to try and defend EGW and she doesn't have to be accountable for the things she said.

Some are willing to see the truth, and others just aren't ready to see it.

I agree. 2 Cor. 3 talks about peple who can't see the truth because of a veil, and the only way the veil can be removed is by turning to Jesus. Read it and check it out.

 

[woobadooba]

With all due respect, the SDA church holds and teaches this view for a reason- an attempt to make the gross errors of their prophet sound more palettable. I believed the SDA view of inspiration for a few decades too, but from where I'm standing now it's easy to see why the Bible must be put down by SDAism. It makes it easier to try and defend EGW and she doesn't have to be accountable for the things she said.

You assume to think that I don't know Jesus because I don't agree with you that the Bible is inspired word for word, as in every single word that is used in it is God's 'choice' word to express His thoughts.

Instead of making such condemnatory accusations why don't you give an actual answer to the issues that I have raised.

Can you do that?

Just out of curiosity, do you also believe that the punctuation in the Bible is inspired by God?

 

[freeindeed2]

You assume to think that I don't know Jesus because I don't agree with you that the Bible is inspired word for word, as in every single word that is used in it is God's 'choice' word to express His thoughts.

Instead of making such condemnatory accusations why don't you give an actual answer to the issues that I have raised.

Can you do that?

Just out of curiosity, do you also believe that the punctuation in the Bible is inspired by God?

Wooba, from my experience with you I believe you do know Christ and that his Spirit lives in you. I count you as a brother in Christ, whether you agree with me or you agree with someone else. Fair enough? My statements were not directed at you, rather they were directed at SDAism beliefs and teachings themselves. Discussing the beliefs taught by a denomination is not the same as making personal judgments against individuals. I apologize if you took my post personally, but if you'll go back and read it again you'll see that I was careful to discuss SDA teachings rather than you personally (thus I used words like SDAism, representing that belief system).

 

[freeindeed2]

Instead of making such condemnatory accusations why don't you give an actual answer to the issues that I have raised.

Can you do that?

There are definitely difficulties in Scripture. With no original documents they will be wrestled with 'till kingdom come. I believe the Bible is infallible Word of God in it's original languages. None of the apparent difficulties take away from anything major, and just because we don't understand them, or wrestle with them, doesn't reflect on them being erronious, rather it reflects on us.

Just out of curiosity, do you also believe that the punctuation in the Bible is inspired by God?

There wasn't punctuation in the originals. So translators had to apply it according to the intended meaning of the author.

 

[woobadooba]

There are definitely difficulties in Scripture. With no original documents they will be wrestled with 'till kingdom come. I believe the Bible is infallible Word of God in it's original languages. None of the apparent difficulties take away from anything major, and just because we don't understand them, or wrestle with them, doesn't reflect on them being erronious, rather it reflects on us.

What you are referring to is spelling errors, and perhaps errors in calculation.

However, what I am referring to is entirely different. I am referring to actual thoughts, such as Moses giving a certificate of divorce, and assuming that it was God's will for this to be, and Peter not quoting Joel correctly when referring to his prophecy. Moreover, David used the word "hate" to describe what he believed to be God's thoughts about the wicked, yet, Jesus said "love your enemies".

Again, my contention is not with the inspiration of the Bible, but with the idea that every thought in it consists of God's choice words to express that thought, and that every idea that a prophet of God expressed in it was given to that prophet by God to be expressed as that which was directly given to him by God.

To give you another example that a prophet of God can err in assuming that something is according to the will of God, when in fact it isn't, we can find such a case in 1Chronicles 7:1-4, wherein David was contemplating within his heart to build God a house. Nathan, the prophet of God, had informed David that he should do all that is in his heart, because the Lord was with him. In other words, he was informing David that the Lord approved of what David wanted to do.

However, the Lord later informed Nathan that it wasn't according to His will for David to build such a house. So Nathan, thinking that it was according to the will of God for David to do this, soon discovered that he was wrong, that the thought that he assumed to be of God was merely an assumption.

"And it happened as David sat in his house, David said to Nathan the prophet, Lo, I dwell in a house of cedars, but the ark of the covenant of Jehovah is under curtains. And Nathan said to David, Do all that is in your heart, for God is with you. And it happened the same night the Word of God came to Nathan, saying, Go and tell David My servant, So says Jehovah, You shall not build Me a house to dwell in." (1Ch 17:1-4 MKJV)

Should we now believe that Nathan really wasn't a prophet of God because he assumed something to be of God that really wasn't of God? That is, was he not a real prophet of God because he had informed David that he had God's approval to build God a house, when in fact it really wasn't according to God's will for David to build such a house?

When looking at things like this, it is hard to justify how anyone could continue to believe that a prophet of God couldn't assume something to be of God, when in fact it really isn't of God. God is infallible. Prophets are merely men. They are not infallible, and can therefore err on any point. It doesn't make them any less a prophet of God because this happens. It just means they are human, just like the rest of us.

Again, one ought to look at the core message of a prophet, and the lifestyle that he promotes to determine if he has such a gift before concluding that he doesn't have the gift because he has erred on some point of doctrine, or has assumed something to be according to the wll of God when in fact it isn't. There is much more to the nature of inspiration than most people are willing to discern.

Incidentally, we know that David was a prophet of God too. Why then did David need Nathan to inform him later that it wasn't according to the will of God for him to build this house? For that matter, why didn't David, being a prophet of God, not have the discernment to know that Natan's thoughts were really not of God?

There is much more to the nature of inspiration than what we understand.

There wasn't punctuation in the originals. So translators had to apply it according to the intended meaning of the author.

This is correct.

 

[BigNorsk]

In Chapter 11 of Genesis Abram left Ur to settle in Canaan, but they stopped in Haran.

Then in 12 the focus goes to the appearance of the Lord to Abram and Him telling Abram that he was giving Abram and his decendants the land and Abram was to go there.

So if you add it all up, it could very well be that God appeared to Abram while he was in Ur, else why does chapter 11 say they were going to Canaan? For whatever reason Abram's father decided to settle in Haran, and it is easily explainable that Moses stayed there until his father's death in honor of his father. Doing so made it clear that the land was given to Abram and not his father who would have been the rightful head if they had immediately gone from Ur to Canaan.

We tend to read things in a very linear manner, which isn't always how the story is told.

If God did not tell Abram to go to Canaan while in Ur, then you are left with the problem of explaining why Abram was going to Canaan before God told him too.

So, in this case, I think the account in Acts is correct about the timing of things, it's just not obvious from the way the Genesis account is written.

Marv

 

[Jimlarmore]

With all due respect, the SDA church holds and teaches this view for a reason- an attempt to make the gross errors of their prophet sound more palettable. I believed the SDA view of inspiration for a few decades too, but from where I'm standing now it's easy to see why the Bible must be put down by SDAism. It makes it easier to try and defend EGW and she doesn't have to be accountable for the things she said.

This is a pretty harsh accusation. Being an ex-adventist preacher I suppose you have documented support for such a thing. If so I'd surely like to see it now or when ever you can produce it. If not then what you are saying is just your personal perspective which could be very skewed from the truth indeed.

I agree. 2 Cor. 3 talks about peple who can't see the truth because of a veil, and the only way the veil can be removed is by turning to Jesus. Read it and check it out.

From my perspective this statement of yours is like the pot calling the kettle black.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[freeindeed2]

This is a pretty harsh accusation. Being an ex-adventist preacher I suppose you have documented support for such a thing. If so I'd surely like to see it now or when ever you can produce it. If not then what you are saying is just your personal perspective which could be very skewed from the truth indeed.

You can observe it every time this subject is discussed between SDA's and most Christians. SDA's will tear the Bible down to justify the problems with EGW. It's observable, and I've seen it on every forum I post on. Sorry, I don't have a 'study' on this, but you can observe it quite easily.

From my perspective this statement of yours is like the pot calling the kettle black.

I understand why you must say that. However, 2 Cor 3 will say otherwise. When legalists (law-based denominations) run back to Moses' writings a veil is firmly in place, and they CANNOT see the truth. I wouldn't expect them to be able to see the truth. The Bible says they can't.

 

[woobadooba]

You can observe it every time this subject is discussed between SDA's and most Christians. SDA's will tear the Bible down to justify the problems with EGW. It's observable, and I've seen it on every forum I post on. Sorry, I don't have a 'study' on this, but you can observe it quite easily.

Is this what you see me doing here?

I do think I have presented some valid points.

Bible prophets were not perfect. They did err at times, not only on matters of discerning God's will, but also on matters of interpretation, as I have clearly shown in this thread.

Those who can't see these things just don't want to see them, because they feel that to agree with such ideas one must deny the inspiration of the Bible. Where they go wrong here is that they imply that the Bible was written by the finger of God, while failing to remember that it was written by men.

Yes, they were inspired by God, but they were also human. The message of the Bible is infallible; but the men that wrote it weren't.

 

[djconklin]

I believed the SDA view of inspiration for a few decades too, but from where I'm standing now it's easy to see why the Bible must be put down by SDAism.

In the seminary we spent most of our time studying the very book (the Bible) that you suggest we "put down." In fact, I'd suggest that if you tried to enter the seminary with that attitude you would be rejected--other seminaries might welcome you with open arms becuase you'd be a kindred spirit. The SDA church lifts up the Bible; we do NOT put it down in any shape, manner, or form.

 

[Adventtruth]

The SDA church lifts up the Bible; we do NOT put it down in any shape, manner, or form.

Not in the Adventist churches I was a part of.

AT

 

[woobadooba]

Not in the Adventist churches I was a part of.

AT

You will find people in every church that espouse views that are contrary to the scriptures. That doesn't mean the Church is at fault. It just simply means that the Church has members that are not educated well enough on such matters, to properly handle the Word of Truth.

Of course, it could also mean that there are people within the Church that are wolves in sheep's clothing. Meaning, they know they are liars, but intentionally distort the truth for personal gain. Such people are usually operating under the influence of Satanic powers.

 

[Adventtruth]

You will find people in every church that espouse views that are contrary to the scriptures. That doesn't mean the Church is at fault. It just simply means that the Church has members that are not educated well enough on such matters, to properly handle the Word of Truth.

Of course, it could also mean that there are people within the Church that are wolves in sheep's clothing. Meaning, they know they are liars, but intentionally distort the truth for personal gain. Such people are usually operating under the influence of Satanic powers.

I find the weekly prayer meeting a joke. The pastor and the elders are wondering why no one comes. They just went through the 28 fundalmental beliefs, and now are going through the Ministry of Healing. One member asked the pastor "why don't we just study a book of the bible like Romans? The pastor replied "the ministry of healing has a lot of bible text in it".

This is the problem...More brain wahing through the SOP and not the bible. The Holy Spirit all ways attends to the pure gospel.

AT

 

[woobadooba]

I find the weekly prayer meeting a joke. The pastor and the elders are wondering why no one comes. They just went through the 28 fundalmental beliefs, and now are going through the Ministry of Healing. One member asked the pastor "why don't we just study a book of the bible like Romans? The pastor replied "the ministry of healing has a lot of bible text in it".

This is the problem...More brain wahing through the SOP and not the bible. The Holy Spirit all ways attends to the pure gospel.

AT

Brain washing?

Honestly, I don't see anything wrong with using such material for study. If the teachings reflect those that are of the Bible, such an endeavor would not impede ones growth in Christ; rather, it would serve to enhance that person's relationship with God.

Do you read nothing but the Bible?

 

[Adventtruth]

Brain washing?

Honestly, I don't see anything wrong with using such material for study. If the teachings reflect those that are of the Bible, such an endeavor would not impede ones growth in Christ; rather, it would serve to enhance that person's relationship with God.

Do you read nothing but the Bible?

Yes Brain washing. Many of the members wont believe the bible but will believe what the SOP says. Example. One Adventist member was in a conversation with me, her husband, my wife. I said that the Holy Spirit is the seal of God. She asked where do you get that idea becasue the Sabbath is the seal of God. I then read from Eph. 4:30:

Ephesians 4:30 (KJV) And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

She then took my bible and then read it herself and to every ones surprise even her husband she said "thats not what that says!" Then her husband read it and said "honey that is what it says". My wife then read it and said "yes thats what it says".

His wife then took the bible and read it her self and said "thats not what it says. She then said, "let me go and get my bible". So she went to her car and got it, and read from teh back of her EGW STUDY BIBLE that the seal of God was the Sabbath and not the Holy Spirit.

This sort of stuff happens all the time. The SOP teaches we are saved by faith but kept and judged by works for salvation. This is a distortion of the gospel

AT

 

[freeindeed2]

Yes Brain washing. Many of the members wont believe the bible but will believe what the SOP says. Example. One Adventist member was in a conversation with me, her husband, my wife. I said that the Holy Spirit is the seal of God. She asked where do you get that idea becasue the Sabbath is the seal of God. I then read from Eph. 4:30:

Ephesians 4:30 (KJV) And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

She then took my bible and then read it herself and to every ones surprise even her husband she said "thats not what that says!" Then her husband read it and said "honey that is what it says". My wife then read it and said "yes thats what it says".

His wife then took the bible and read it her self and said "thats not what it says. She then said, "let me go and get my bible". So she went to her car and got it, and read from teh back of her EGW STUDY BIBLE that the seal of God was the Sabbath and not the Holy Spirit.

This sort of stuff happens all the time. The SOP teaches we are saved by faith but kept and judged by works for salvation. This is a distortion of the gospel

AT

Absolutely! I've had similar experiences many times (most of them while I was still a 'full-fledged' SDA).

 

[Cribstyl]

Bible prophets were not perfect. They did err at times, not only on matters of discerning God's will, but also on matters of interpretation, as I have clearly shown in this thread.

Not to be argumentive Woo, but
you've showed no such thing. (You're trying to justify EGWhite as a prophet by comparing apples with oranges.) For cryingoutloud, these prophets are messengers who predated Jesus Christ.

Your first argument is this.

... I am referring to actual thoughts, such as Moses giving a certificate of divorce, and assuming that it was God's will for this to be,......

You're implying that giving a certification of divorce was Moses' will and not God's will?
That understanding is falsely reasoned through misinterpreting Jesus response to 2 questions asked by Pharisees. Mat 19:3The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every (any) cause?
Mat 19:7They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

Mat 19:8He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

Christ validate Moses as the prophet who gave to Israel God's commandment, statutes, and judgements.

By isolating this text above someone can say that Moses gave the people a way out of marriage, but by looking back to the day when Moses makes that decree Deu 24:1-4, there are many other commandments given that are not considered as from Moses.
(before)Deu 10:13To keep the commandments of the LORD, and his statutes, which I command thee this day for thy good?

(after) Deu 26:16 This day the LORD thy God hath commanded thee to do these statutes and judgments: thou shalt therefore keep and do them with all thine heart, and with all thy soul. Deu 26:17Thou hast avouched the LORD this day to be thy God, and to walk in his ways, and to keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his judgments, and to hearken unto his voice:

If you count all the times Moses say that these commandments are God's commandments, statutes and judgements, then, you can learn that Moses did not come up with divorce.


At the sermon on the mount when Jesus taught that calling someone a fool is as bad as murder. He taught that adultry was a reason for divorce.


-----------------------------------------------------

Where in the Bible does it say the Holy Scriptures are inspired word by word, as in every word being exactly what God wanted it to be to express His thought?

2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.


What part of "ALL SCRIPTURE" does not mean "word by word?" The problem comes when someone doubts what is written to suggest that the words of the prophet is false based on their private understanding.

------------------------------------------------------

Again, was it God's choice word for David to use the word "hate" in describing how He felt about His enemies?

Is every word prophetic? No. Does these arguments make your case that a prophet makes errors? I dont think so.

 

[Cribstyl]

Brain washing?

Honestly, I don't see anything wrong with using such material for study. If the teachings reflect those that are of the Bible, such an endeavor would not impede ones growth in Christ; rather, it would serve to enhance that person's relationship with God.

Do you read nothing but the Bible?

Of course you dont because from your prophet said, "Little heed is given to the Bible, and the Lord has given a lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light" (Review and Herald, January 20, 1903).

That's one reason that SDA use the lesser light and called it as inspired as the bible.

Why did Christ call Apostles to preach the gospel rather than another prophet to explain Genesis to Revelation?
Why did Paul teach "
1Cr 12:28And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

The apostles message is about Jesus Christ. The prophets message is the comming of Jesus Christ and His kingdom.
The preaching of selective Laws is another Gospel.
Gal 1:6I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Gal 1:7Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
Gal 1:8But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:9As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:10For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
Gal 1:11But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
Gal 1:12For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Gal 1:13For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:
Gal 1:14And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.
Gal 1:15But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called [me] by his grace,

Gal 1:16To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
Gal 1:17Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

 

[woobadooba]

Not to be argumentive Woo, but
you've showed no such thing. (You're trying to justify EGWhite as a prophet by comparing apples with oranges.) For cryingoutloud, these prophets are messengers who predated Jesus Christ.

Your first argument is this.

You're implying that giving a certification of divorce was Moses' will and not God's will?
That understanding is falsely reasoned through misinterpreting Jesus response to 2 questions asked by Pharisees. Mat 19:3The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every (any) cause?
Mat 19:7They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

Mat 19:8He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

Christ validate Moses as the prophet who gave to Israel God's commandment, statutes, and judgements.

By isolating this text above someone can say that Moses gave the people a way out of marriage, but by looking back to the day when Moses makes that decree Deu 24:1-4, there are many other commandments given that are not considered as from Moses.
(before)Deu 10:13To keep the commandments of the LORD, and his statutes, which I command thee this day for thy good?

(after) Deu 26:16 This day the LORD thy God hath commanded thee to do these statutes and judgments: thou shalt therefore keep and do them with all thine heart, and with all thy soul. Deu 26:17Thou hast avouched the LORD this day to be thy God, and to walk in his ways, and to keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his judgments, and to hearken unto his voice:

If you count all the times Moses say that these commandments are God's commandments, statutes and judgements, then, you can learn that Moses did not come up with divorce.


At the sermon on the mount when Jesus taught that calling someone a fool is as bad as murder. He taught that adultry was a reason for divorce.


-----------------------------------------------------




2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.


What part of "ALL SCRIPTURE" does not mean "word by word?" The problem comes when someone doubts what is written to suggest that the words of the prophet is false based on their private understanding.

You really should read an argument before responding to it!

My point is that Christ said a certificate of divorce wasn't according to God's will, but was given by Moses as a result of the hardness of the hearts of God's people. In other words, God didn't give the people a certificate of divorce. Moses did!

Yet, Moses, in Deut., designated a certificate of divorce as being one of God's statutes, thus implying that it was given
by God.

Now who are we to believe, Moses, or God Himself?

Obviously Moses added something to the law that wasn't according to God's will. Hence it wasn't inspired by God.

This then leads us to the question of what does "given by inspiration of God" really mean?

By the way, my point here isn't to prove that Ellen White had the prophetic gift; rather it is to argue the point that one can't assume someone to not have the prophetic gift simply because he/she has erred on some point of doctrine, or has incorrectly discerned the will of God. For, as anyone who takes an honest look at these things can see, even Biblical prophets erred on matters of truth at times. In other words, they were not infallible.