Why critics of Ellen G. White are "splitting hairs".

[Jon0388g]

Also, even more than the deception, we have the fact that according to EGW's own words, her earliest visions supported the shut-door doctrine. Her visions were wrong, especially in that her accompanying angel told her that the time was past for sinners to be saved. Later reinterpretations of these visions and editing of them to support the new views just are not sufficient to explain away the errors in the early Adventist doctrines and in the visions of EGW. A vision that teaches error can't be from God.

Sophia, the quote doesn't say the angel said anything. EGW was instructed to look for the work of salvation of the sinner's souls, and that it had ceased.

So, either EGW interpreted her vision incorrectly, or we are interpreting EGW's writing's incorrectly - I do not think the angel in EGW's vision is in the wrong.

What EGW appears to be saying from the context is that the sinner's hearts were 'as black as ever.' And we know from Scripture that probation can be closed if someone hardens their heart enough, and grieves the Holy Spirit to the point of no return. Their salvation is as good as gone, as EGW says.

Again, no concrete evidence for me.

Jon

 

[Adventist Dissident]

The Review

This post is about why the critics of egw are "splitting hairs"

As of yet there have been No Statements as to which Issues the supportes feel are split hairs. the supporter are as follows

Supporters"
Reddog:
OntheDL -
DJkonklin


those questioning EGW are:
Icedragon
Sophia7
Tall73

The issue being questioned involved are as follows

1. The shut door - from 1844 to 1851 the millerrites believed in the shut door theory. that to door of mercy had been shut to those who has not accepted the are lost for ever.
2. The Law in Galations - the law in gaulation 3. 2 issues, was it cermonial or the 10 commandments, and did EGW change her mind on this for her eailer works in 1856 to 1888.
3. day of Atonement beinning in 1844 - did the day of atonemet begin oct 22 1844. How do you come to that conclusion. The day of Atonement is part of the fall feast . the spring feast have alreay been fulfilled. with a corresponding event in christ life. , the fall feast should be the same way but are not
4. Plagerism- did egw copy material, spicificall the Desire of Ages. She claimed to recieve visions and it was divenly inspired.
5. Can the prophet EGW stand the biblical test of Review. -

As of yet the support have made almost no attempt to discuss the issues. the exception has been DL who earliy on attempted a mild defense on the canwirght question, and most recently attempted an explaniation of the SDA view of the Day of atonement.

ths supportes have avoided the issues and engaged in personal attacks

Issues that still need to be answered:
1. The shut door -
a. Why did EGW prophocy endorsing for 7 years by vision, a theroy that was not true and later dropped.
b. why was this vision cut from later printing of the word to the little flock and never mentioned after that
c. Why did James White promise to add it later when it was reprinted and never did?

2. The Law in Galations -
a. why did EGW change her view of the Law in Galations 4 times?
b. Why did she reject JH waggoner and then accept his son EJ waggoner who taught the exact same thing? only later to reject him.

3. day of Atonement beinning in 1844 - did the day of atonemet begin oct 22 1844.
a. How do you come to that conclusion.
b. Why do the fall feast not correspond to events in the manner of the spring feast. The spring feast have alreay been fulfilled. with a corresponding event in christs life. ,
4. Plagerism-
a. did egw copy material,
b. was the Desire of Ages. inspired or copied.
c. Why did Fred Veltman come to the conclusion that his review,commished by the GC, caused serious problems to the claim of divine inspiration?
d. whid did the Veltman study conclude that EGW had copied material?

5. Can the prophet EGW stand the biblical test of Review. -
a. why is the denomination reluctiant to address the issues.
b. Why do SDA's as shown in the posting of this thread, refuse to discuss issues.
C. Why do sda act like it the end of the world if they Reject EGW as a prophet. It's not salvation by EGW? is it?
D. what would change in your life if you had not heard of EGW. What would change in you life if you did not ever again read EGW?
E. could and honest person reading the bible come to that conclusion that EGW is a prophet?

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Sophia, the quote doesn't say the angel said anything. EGW was instructed to look for the work of salvation of the sinner's souls, and that it had ceased.

So, either EGW interpreted her vision incorrectly, or we are interpreting EGW's writing's incorrectly - I do not think the angel in EGW's vision is in the wrong.

What EGW appears to be saying from the context is that the sinner's hearts were 'as black as ever.' And we know from Scripture that probation can be closed if someone hardens their heart enough, and grieves the Holy Spirit to the point of no return. Their salvation is as good as gone, as EGW says.

Again, no concrete evidence for me.

Jon

Joh review post 34,35, 36 and then respond what do you say to that

 

[djconklin]

4. Plagerism- did egw copy material, spicificall the Desire of Ages. She claimed to recieve visions and it was divenly inspired.

What would you like to know about it?

BTW, only one 'k' in my name.

4. Plagerism-
a. did egw copy material,
b. was the Desire of Ages. inspired or copied.
c. Why did Fred Veltman come to the conclusion that his review,commished by the GC, caused serious problems to the claim of divine inspiration?
d. whid did the Veltman study conclude that EGW had copied material?

Answers:
(a). very minor, insignificant amounts.
(b). given (a) inspired. See the video "Ellen White and Inspiration" by Dr. Jud Lake at http://ellenwhitesummit.foxyresearch.com/
(c). Because too many SDA's harbored a concept of verbal inspiration.
(d). Actually, Dr. Veltman very clearly and repeatedly stated that he didn't touch the issue of plagiarism. The claim that he did is made by critics who haven't read his study and are pulling a fast one on others who are unsuspecting that anyone would do such a thing.

why did EGW change her view of the Law in Galations 4 times?

Could it be because in 4 different places Paul is using the word "law" in 4 different ways?

 

[Jon0388g]

Joh review post 34,35, 36 and then respond what do you say to that

To be honest I'd much prefer if you condensed it into bite-sized bullet points.

From what I've been following, EGW said that she did make a mistake, but once the light had been shed she understood the shut door in its correct perspective.

I'm by no means convinced on EGW myself. But, from what I've been researching over the past few months, she just seems holy. There are some very personal issues as to why I believe she was inspired.

Jon

 

[djconklin]

Why are anti-SDA's afraid to deal with the issues in the Bible?

1) Are they afraid to deal with the issue that the Bible writers believed that mythical creatures (unicorns, cockatrices, etc.,) really existed?

2) Are they afraid to deal with the issue that the Bible writers believed that turtles had a voice (SOS 2:12)?

3) Are they afraid to deal with the issue that the Bible writers believed that PI=3 (I Kings 7:23)?

Why are they always evading the issues?!? Honest, inquiring minds want to know!

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Why are anti-SDA's afraid to deal with the issues in the Bible?

1) Are they afraid to deal with the issue that the Bible writers believed that mythical creatures (unicorns, cockatrices, etc.,) really existed?

2) Are they afraid to deal with the issue that the Bible writers believed that turtles had a voice (SOS 2:12)?

3) Are they afraid to deal with the issue that the Bible writers believed that PI=3 (I Kings 7:23)?

Why are they always evading the issues?!? Honest, inquiring minds want to know!

this is first I have even heard of those issue. I am not an anti-SDA. I still believe in Sabbath, State of the dead, 2nd coming, spiritual gifts, althought not sure about the about EGW any more. I am coming to talk about issues and evidence. Why should I believe EGW is a prophet when she cannot pass the biblical test? review post 34, 35, 36 and then explaing why she was wrong. how many time can EGW be wrong before you say she was not a prophet? why should any one believe that she was a prophet give that information? as to the above issue start a new thread and we will discuss.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

To be honest I'd much prefer if you condensed it into bite-sized bullet points.

From what I've been following, EGW said that she did make a mistake, but once the light had been shed she understood the shut door in its correct perspective.

I'm by no means convinced on EGW myself. But, from what I've been researching over the past few months, she just seems holy. There are some very personal issues as to why I believe she was inspired.

Jon

on a topic as important as this that is about as small as it's going to get. those are just a summary of the issues. 3 pages 2 articles and you won't even look so we can have a serious disscussion as to what is actually said. That look like and avoidence tactic to me.

Just "seems" holy that is no criteria for bliblcal prophet. i respect your decision to believe, but why should I and why should anyone else given the evidence. If you want to believe that is fine, why should I. Inquring minds want to know.

 

[djconklin]

how many time can EGW be wrong before you say she was not a prophet?

Given the track record of those opposed to EGW: claimed she was a millionaire when she was not. Claimed she was accumulating property when she wasn't. Claimed she was a plagiarist when they haven't even done the work necessary to prove it. Claimed she contradicted Scripture over 50 times when she didn't. Claimed that some of her "prophecies" didn't come true when she didn't even make a prophecy in the first place! Why should I believe them? How many times and ways do they have to be proven wrong before you stop listening to them and repeating their nonsense???

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Answers:

(a). very minor, insignificant amounts.

why should I believe this?

(c). Because too many SDA's harbored a concept of verbal inspiration.[

I don't I believe in thought inspriation. so count me out.

(d). Actually, Dr. Veltman very clearly and repeatedly stated that he didn't touch the issue of plagiarism. The claim that he did is made by critics who haven't read his study and are pulling a fast one on others who are unsuspecting that anyone would do such a thing.

did you read the veltman report to mininstry magazine. here is it is http://www.ellenwhite.org/egw40.htm

remember Fred veltman is a friend and supporter of EGW
qoute taken from the above link, in the Post script.

"Question: How do you harmonize Ellen White's use of sources with her statements to the contrary?
Veltman: I must admit at the start that in my judgment this is the most serious problem to be faced in connection with Ellen White's literary dependence [copying]. It strikes at the heart of her honesty, her integrity, and therefore her trustworthiness. As of now I do not have--nor, to my knowledge, does anyone else have--a satisfactory answer to this important question."


No satifactory answer!!! this was the guy who studied for the General Conference. whom you refered to eailer

Could it be because in 4 different places Paul is using the word "law" in 4 different ways?

get the text and prove it. that is an easy thing to say, not an easy thing to prove.

 

[djconklin]

review post 34, 35, 36 and then explaing why she was wrong.

I have emailed Dr. Jerry Moon on this and am waiting for his response.

 

[djconklin]

(a). very minor, insignificant amounts.

why should I believe this?

Because it is true. See some of the evidence at http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/David/index.html

(d). Actually, Dr. Veltman very clearly and repeatedly stated that he didn't touch the issue of plagiarism. The claim that he did is made by critics who haven't read his study and are pulling a fast one on others who are unsuspecting that anyone would do such a thing.

did you read the veltman report to mininstry magazine. here is it is http://www.ellenwhite.org/egw40.htm

Did I? Well, let's see: at http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/David/bibliography.html

it lists the interview with Dr. Veltman as #242 _______ "The Desire of Ages project: the conclusions," Ministry (December 1990): 11-5.

I have also written to him and talked with him on the phone.

So, the short answer to your question is yes and it is also just as obvious that you don't look at what others post links to. As I previously stated (not on this thread), I have also dl'd, printed, and read Dr. Veltman's study (see http://www.adventistarchives.org/documents.asp?CatID=13&SortBy=1&ShowDateOrder=True): have you?

Could it be because in 4 different places Paul is using the word "law" in 4 different ways?

get the text and prove it.

Since I only threw it out as a possible suggestion I am not under any burden to prove anything. The question is: did you, or did you not consider this as a possibility? Your question implies that you did not.

 

[djconklin]

Post 34 from http://www.ellenwhite.org/egw1.htm sates that:

"(1) Joseph Bates held the view that there would be a 7-year period where Christ would test His children and that Christ would return to earth in 1851. (2) In 1848 there was a war in Europe, and later a pestilence occurred, and the Advent believers took these events as signs that the time of trouble had commenced. (3) Ellen White had visions supporting this "shut door" doctrine, and James White's paper--Present Truth--trumpeted the shut door teaching up until late 1850." (I added the numbers in parenthesis.)

Where's the proof for any of those 3 claims?

There was no "war" in Europe in 1848--there were revolutions tho'. See http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/modsbook19.html Doesn't it seem odd that they should get such a basic fact wrong? How many others are there that no one has looked at?

This web site also runs the claim that EGW plagiarized through paraphrasing (http://www.ellenwhite.org/egw89.htm). However, when one actually look at the data it turns out to be false:

1) http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/David/DA_40_rea.html

2) http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/David/DA_49_rea.html

3) http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/David/DA_73_rea.html

4) http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/David/DA_74_rea.html

5) http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/David/DA_83.html

6) http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/David/DA_85_rea.html

7) http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/David/DA_18_march.html

When I was little I'd get spanked if I disobeyed. Luckily I learned real quick what not to do to avoid getting spanked. The above shows the ciritics getting it 8 times. How many more times do they have to get it before they learn?

 

[tall73]

get the text and prove it. that is an easy thing to say, not an easy thing to prove.

I am game!

Here are three in close proxemity, Romans 7 and 8, Paul's discussion of being set free from the law of sin and death.

Rom 7:7 What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet."

Here Paul is speaking of the OT law as is plain from the inclusion of one of the ten commandments. Therefore this is the written law, at LEAST the ten commandments, and probably including the law of Moses as well.

Rom 7:21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand.
Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being,
Rom 7:23 but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.

Ok, the law of his mind is the law of God which he acknowledges to be good. The law of sin and death is his sinful nature which always overcomes the good he wants to do. In this case he is employing νομος as more of a principle. Ie...a rule that never changes.

The solution to his inability to keep the law due to his flesh is yet another law:

Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.

Here we have a new law, the law of the Spirit of life, that is written on the heart and overcomes the sinful nature. It would be the law of the new covenant, written on our hearts and minds. It is the fruit of walking in the Spirit.

Against such things there is no law according to Galatians.

It is the law of the Spirit of life that allows the righteous requirements of the written law to be fully met in us...it goes beyond the written in a way we never could have before.

And then we have some other uses as well:

Romans 2:12-15 You have the inner law of the conscience

Romans 3:27 the law of faith as opposed to the law of works (likely the written law)

1Co 6:1 references the word law in regard to the legal magistrates of Rome--ie, civil authorities.

I Cor 9:9 refers to the law of Moses

So, yes Paul does use the term to refer to a number of things. But he generally uses qualifiers so that you know what he is referencing--law of sin and death, law of the Spirit of life, law of faith, etc. Sometimes he doesn't as in the case with civil authorities.

However, the question is how did EGW mean it? Since she adds qualifiers at times we can assume that the way she spelled it out (ceremonial, etc.) is what she meant. Context, and the qualifiers used help pin down flexible terms.

 

[djconklin]

I think he meant all in Galatians. At one time I had a file listing some 2 dozen different ways that Paul uses the word "nomos." From specific laws to law as prinicple, to law as the 1st five books, etc..

However, the question is how did EGW mean it? Since she adds qualifiers at times we can assume that the way she spelled it out (ceremonial, etc.) is what she meant.

We also should ask ourselves if she was writing as a systematic theologian or was she writing for practical purposes? The answer is the latter.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

We also should ask ourselves if she was writing as a systematic theologian or was she writing for practical purposes?

it does not matter if it was systmatic or practical. it matters if she was accurate. you must use the text accurately.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

I am game!

Here are three in close proxemity, Romans 7 and 8, Paul's discussion of being set free from the law of sin and death.

Rom 7:7 What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet."

Here Paul is speaking of the OT law as is plain from the inclusion of one of the ten commandments. Therefore this is the written law, at LEAST the ten commandments, and probably including the law of Moses as well.

Rom 7:21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand.
Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being,
Rom 7:23 but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.

Ok, the law of his mind is the law of God which he acknowledges to be good. The law of sin and death is his sinful nature which always overcomes the good he wants to do. In this case he is employing νομος as more of a principle. Ie...a rule that never changes.

The solution to his inability to keep the law due to his flesh is yet another law:

Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.

Here we have a new law, the law of the Spirit of life, that is written on the heart and overcomes the sinful nature. It would be the law of the new covenant, written on our hearts and minds. It is the fruit of walking in the Spirit.

Against such things there is no law according to Galatians.

It is the law of the Spirit of life that allows the righteous requirements of the written law to be fully met in us...it goes beyond the written in a way we never could have before.

And then we have some other uses as well:

Romans 2:12-15 You have the inner law of the conscience

Romans 3:27 the law of faith as opposed to the law of works (likely the written law)

1Co 6:1 references the word law in regard to the legal magistrates of Rome--ie, civil authorities.

I Cor 9:9 refers to the law of Moses

So, yes Paul does use the term to refer to a number of things. But he generally uses qualifiers so that you know what he is referencing--law of sin and death, law of the Spirit of life, law of faith, etc. Sometimes he doesn't as in the case with civil authorities.

However, the question is how did EGW mean it? Since she adds qualifiers at times we can assume that the way she spelled it out (ceremonial, etc.) is what she meant. Context, and the qualifiers used help pin down flexible terms.

good post Tall, I agree with you completely, Paul qualify the the law he is talking about. NOw which Law was he talking about in galations? then compare it with EGW. if there is a contradiction there is a problem

 

[djconklin]

We also should ask ourselves if she was writing as a systematic theologian or was she writing for practical purposes?

it does not matter if it was systmatic or practical. it matters if she was accurate. you must use the text accurately.

It does matter. In practical application of a passage one can go beyond what the text actually said. For example, in the Bible Matthew refers the reader to Isa. 7:14 as a prophecy ab't Christ. Strictly speaking there is no evidence that Isaiah saw the text as being a Messianic prdeiction. But, somehow over time others saw it that way and used the Greek word "parthenos" (meaning virgin) for "'almah" which connotes but not denotes a virgin.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

It does matter. In practical application of a passage one can go beyond what the text actually said. For example, in the Bible Matthew refers the reader to Isa. 7:14 as a prophecy ab't Christ. Strictly speaking there is no evidence that Isaiah saw the text as being a Messianic prdeiction. But, somehow over time others saw it that way and used the Greek word "parthenos" (meaning virgin) for "'almah" which connotes but not denotes a virgin.

that may be but OT employs symbols and types. the application that matthew makes, may be applying a symboly to christ's, birth that was symoblicly understood. It is not debating what the word virgin means and that it is applied to and unmarried woman, the meaning of the text has not changed, the application yes. what we are fighting over is the meaning of the text. Did she interpet properly. the answer is NO. sorry.

 

[OntheDL]

this is crazy dating, it makes no sense. the spring feast all had something to do with christ and the fall feast had something to do with an baptist farmer, a small band of disappionted followers????? no way

Antitypical fulfillment of the fall feasts are not Advenstist. They came from the Jewish practice and understanding.

eg. The day of Atonement is understood by the jews as a day of judgment, the feast of trumpets are the days of blowing trumpets to announce the incoming judgment...