Nic Samojluk Posted July 28, 2010 Author Share Posted July 28, 2010 Are we almost to Exodus?? Exodus? Are you serious? We have covered only seven chapters of Genesis and we have 42 more to go. I am willing to move a little bit faster, but I cannot ignore valid comments made by the participants. I am waiting for an opportunity to advance, but I am having a hard time getting caught up with the latest postings, many of which I haven’t had a chance to even read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 28, 2010 Share Posted July 28, 2010 Problem is Nic, you have been quoting a specific instance. You have been quoting what Ellen White said about her books on health reform, that she had not borrowed that from other literature. You are then using that as an argument against any instance of Ellen White using other sources. So you are using statements on health reform books and misapplying them as if it is Ellen Whites claims for all of her books, that is how it seems anyway? Mark I noticed this also Nic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 28, 2010 Share Posted July 28, 2010 Sorry Nic, I realize my post above is probably just another setback, preventing you from advancing. You can just disregard it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug yowell Posted July 29, 2010 Share Posted July 29, 2010 [I have chosen to respectfully disagree with your theory. In the New Testament we have the example of the noble Bereans who, after listening to Paul, went home and searched the Scriptures to determine whether what Paul had taught them was the truth. I have tried to follow the example of these noble Bereans. I will give you one specific example where I disagree with Saint Paul. He believed that God did in fact harden the heart of Pharaoh because he is sovereign. I agree that God is sovereign, but I cannot accept the idea that the Lord would harden the heart of the king. Of course, I am lucky to have some biblical statements where it is clearly stated that it was Pharaoh himself who hardened his heart. This makes more sense to me than Paul’s theory. I hope you are kind enough to allow me this privilege of disagreeing with Paul on this! And notice that I am not rejecting Paul’s wrings in toto! Do you seriously believe what you're saying,Nic?Paul spent years in the wilderness being taught the gospel by Christ Himself.He claimed that his teachings were straight from God.He experienced visions and exercised miracles and was considered by his apostle peers as writing what was "given to Him". Even Peter said that some of Paul's writings were "hard to understand,which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction..."Notice that Peter doesn't include the option, "which some may legitimately disagree with".If Paul's understanding of Scripture has no more accuracy than your's than what are you saying? What experience would establish your right to correct his knowledge of God? No, you aren't rejecting Paul's writings in toto, you're merely rejecting his Biblical authority and his reliability! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 29, 2010 Share Posted July 29, 2010 Ahem....hear here! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight Posted July 30, 2010 Share Posted July 30, 2010 I do not know how many times I have heard: "new light" To find that the "new light" usually involves the following two to be thrown out: Paul, Ellen White. Consistent pattern on the enemies part... Quote The best wisdom is always second hand... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic Samojluk Posted July 30, 2010 Author Share Posted July 30, 2010 Exactly where does it state that the Israelites would rejoice? Nowhere!! Notice there is no I or we in those verses. You just added the word Israelites to the text to make it fit your complaint, Nic. Since the Israelites never conquered Babylon, and it had already been prophesied that another nation would be the one to fulfill this prophesy, why are you substituting Israelites for "he" and the inspired writer as uninspired? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic Samojluk Posted July 30, 2010 Author Share Posted July 30, 2010 I was about to make the same point Doug. The text does not mention Israelites or God. Those that are to rejoice are either: A) The Medo-Persians. The "Ten Kings" that destroy "Babylon" at the end of time. Because only those two groups have ever been indicated as "destroying" Babylon, either in the past or future. Mark :-) Read my response to doug! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic Samojluk Posted July 30, 2010 Author Share Posted July 30, 2010 Originally Posted By: Twilight [i was about to make the same point Doug. The text does not mention Israelites or God. Those that are to rejoice are either: A) The Medo-Persians. The "Ten Kings" that destroy "Babylon" at the end of time. Because only those two groups have ever been indicated as "destroying" Babylon, either in the past or future. Mark :-) Oops! Sorry to interrupt. But you make valid points. Not so valid! Read my previous response to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic Samojluk Posted July 30, 2010 Author Share Posted July 30, 2010 Sorry Nic, I realize my post above is probably just another setback, preventing you from advancing. You can just disregard it. You have no ned to apologize. We have eternity to discuss all side issues connected with the study of the Bible. Is'nt this what we will do the other side of the Jordan River? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug yowell Posted July 30, 2010 Share Posted July 30, 2010 Implying the imprecatory is impervious to impartial and impeccable impaction imbibes imbalanced imaginations impassionately and imperceptibly immobilizing imperiously important imputations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug yowell Posted July 30, 2010 Share Posted July 30, 2010 [I believe that you are missing the main reason for my objection to this and many other similar texts found in the Psalms. We are dealing with one of the classic examples of what is known as imprecatory Psalms. They express what I consider to be an unchristian desire for vengeance. This goes against what the Lord clearly stated: “Vengeance is mine,” and against Jesus’ order that we must love our enemies. Who did or who would carry out the cruel and abhorrent treatment of innocent children is irrelevant. The issue is not who will do this, but rather whether true Christians should indulge in the desire to see acts of cruelty perpetrated against innocent children. You need to read between the lines and interpret the true unchristian feeling which generated this kind of abhorrent actions. [ • Psalm 137:9 - How blessed will be the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks. http://www.theopedia.com/Imprecatory_Psalms I see these kinds of statements in the Bible as one of the reasons for the incarnation of Jesus. He needed to reveal in a vivid way the true character of God. The Creator was not the kind of God depicted by the imprecatory Psalms. He is one who can pray and love even those who were inflicting the worst kind of torture on him. This is exactly the opposite of a God who indulges in the manifestation of raw power and vengeance. God needed to correct this distorted view of God. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted July 30, 2010 Moderators Share Posted July 30, 2010 Speaking as moderator: Get back to Genesis, the topic of the thread. If you want to continue discussing Ellen White, do it on a different discussion. All posts that don't follow this rule will be immediately deleted. If you want to "debate" this, send me PM. Don't argue about moderator decisions on the public threads. See below: http://www.adventistforum.com/forum/ubbt...html#Post209316 Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 30, 2010 Share Posted July 30, 2010 Yes, where were we in the book of Genesis? I've lost track. Can anybody pick it up where it left off? I don't really want to read 10-15 pages just to find it. Implying the imprecatory is impervious to impartial and impeccable impaction imbibes imbalanced imaginations impassionately and imperceptibly immobilizing imperiously important imputations. I bet you can't say that real fast while eating crackers.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted July 30, 2010 Moderators Share Posted July 30, 2010 Yes, where were we in the book of Genesis? I've lost track. Can anybody pick it up where it left off? I think we're in Genesis 8. As near as I can tell, the last discussion of Genesis was page 3, post #366042 - 06/11/10 08:48 AM. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 30, 2010 Share Posted July 30, 2010 Page 3....!!!!???? This is page 37! Maybe it would be easier to just change the title of the thread. And maybe more appropriate at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug yowell Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook Yes, where were we in the book of Genesis? I've lost track. Can anybody pick it up where it left off? I think we're in Genesis 8. As near as I can tell, the last discussion of Genesis was page 3, post #366042 - 06/11/10 08:48 AM. I just went thru the first 13 pages and I don't mean to be disrespectful but in arriving at Gen.8 we've managed to skip about 90% of what was recorded therein.While there were lengthy discussions on the Trinity, sexual matters, inspiration E.G.White, and a bunch of other questions,some of the most important aspects of understanding our present mess was completely ignored.Kinda like the guy who can read 3000 words a minute with 1.9% comprehension.Is this the best we can do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic Samojluk Posted August 6, 2010 Author Share Posted August 6, 2010 If you are wondering what happened to this thread, I suggest that you click on the link listed below. I moved it back to where I had originally intended it to be. I posted there a lengthy explanation for this move and I hope it stays there. I also slightly altered the title in order to better reflect my original intention for the thread. Through the Bible Again: Main Issues and Side Issues http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/383303/1.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.