Prophetic Inspiration

[Rossw]

1 hour ago, CoAspen said:

"Thus saith the Lord" has been turned into a mockery. Down through the centuries and even today that phrase has been used for the justification of mens desires, wars, killings, cults, etc. 

I remember the people of Waco and a man they followed to death who used EGW and the Bible to control others.

I would warn any person reading this site that what you are reading does not represent the the SDA church teachings. We may be struggling with the subject of WO and how God works with His created creatures but we do n to believe in cultism and we are not an EGW cult. Much shame has been brought on her name. Her counsels on not equating her writings with the Bible have in the past and continue also continue to be ignored. We as SDA's believe our salvation comes only from God and a relationship with Him. 

Thanks to Greg and Tom for their many attempts at bringing clarity.

 

Are you likening those here who believe in a "thus saith the Lord" understanding to those who justify "mens desires, wars, killings, cults, etc." and David Koresh?

I'd like to know the reason for this dreadful, false accusation.

[Rossw]

Tom and Greg, do you agree with Coaspen's accusation?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

14 minutes ago, Rossw said:

Are you likening those here who believe in a "thus saith the Lord" understanding to those who justify "mens desires, wars, killings, cults, etc." and David Koresh?

I'd like to know the reason for this dreadful, false accusation.

I don't think that's what CoA was saying.  But some [not here on the forum] who *do* use the "thus saith the Lord" phrase, use it for evil purposes.

I don't think Rossw or GreenCochoa are evil at all.  They just have different opinions than others here on the sanctity and usage of Ellen White's writings, which makes the meeting of the minds rather difficult in discussions of issues, such as women's ordination.

(but that's just how I see it...)

[Rossw]

Pam, Coaspen's disclaimer was worrying to me which implied he likened us to those who do use the Bible and EGW in terrible ways. 

Trust me, I've spent years arguing that SDAism isn't a cult. But it is possible I am wrong about CoA and would apologize if I am.

[Robert]

Note the following change in Ellen White's theological views:

"God loves honest-hearted children, but cannot love those who are dishonest....The Lord loves those little children who try to do right, and he has promised that they shall be in His kingdom. But wicked children God does not love. . . . When you feel tempted to speak impatient and fretful [sic], remember the Lord sees you, and will not love you if you do wrong." [An Appeal to the Youth, Battle Creek Mich. Steam Press, 1864, pp. 42,62]

"Do not teach your children that God does not love them when they do wrong; teach them that He loves them so that it grieves His tender Spirit to see them in transgression." [Signs of the Times, February 15, 1892]

Conclusion:  Ellen White never stated that she was infallible.  That means she was open to error.  The above quotes testify to this.

Here are her own words:

"In regard to infallibility, I never claimed it; God alone is infallible.  His word (i.e., the Scripture) is true, and in Him is no variableness, or shadow of turning."  [Selected Messages, Book One, pp. 416 and 37]

Notice in the following how she includes herself:

 "There is no excuse for anyone in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without error.  The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people is not a proof that our ideas are infallible.  Age will not make an error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair.  No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation." [Review and Herald, December 20,1892]

"The question has been asked me, 'Do you think that the Lord has any more light for us as a people?'  I answer that He has light that is new to us and yet it is precious old light that is to shine forth from the Word of truth.  We have only the glimmerings of the rays of the light that is yet to come to us." [Ellen G. White, Selected Messages Vol. 1, page 401]

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Rossw asked if Tom and I agreed with what CoAspen said.  I am going to assume that his question was directed at what I will quote below:

Let us break that statement down into parts.

1)  Does not represent SDA Church teachings:  The teaching of the SDA Church that is at the center of this discussion is what is the supreme authority as to doctrinal belief and the  Christian life.  Both EGW and the official teachings of the SDA Church are that the Bible, which is the O.T. and a the N.T., as commonly understood by our Protestant faith is the supreme authority that should govern all doctrine, belief and life-style and it pertains to spiritual things.  As is commonly understood, this is also the teaching of Ellen  White.

2) What you are reading here does not represent SDA teachings:  The fundamental issue in this statement is the question as to whether or not Tom and I are suggesting that something that is not in harmony with the official teachings of the SDA denomination and/or whether or not we are suggesting that people here are suggesting something that is not in harmony with official SDA church teachings.  As to the 1st:  Both Tom and I are suggesting that the Bible is the supreme authority, which is in harmony with  official SDA teaching.  As to the 2nd, whether or not people here are suggesting something that is not in harmony with official SDA belief:  With the possible exception of people here who do not believe that the Bible is an authority (and therefore do not believe in EGW)  I believe that the people posting here are in harmony with the official teachings of the SDA Church on this point.  To be specific, I believe that this is true for Rossw.  I also believe that this is true for Green.  But, both, in my thinking, can make statements that are confusing on this point.  And, I believe that Green is more likely to make such confusing statements than is Rossw.    On occasion I will read a statement by Green, shake my head and ask myself what he actually believes.  But, most of the time, he is clear, I think.

3) Speaking for myself, the fundamental issue behind much of what I am posting on this subject is not specific posts by people in CA.  Rather, it is what people may be saying  outside of CA.  I will illustrate with my comment on the red dress:  I have never suggested that anyone here in CA has suggested that EGWs comments on the red dress were directly inspired by God and prescriptive of us today.   Rather, I am writing from the standpoint of what I have experienced outside of CA.  I am not saying that my experience is a majority experience, only that the principle behind it exists and I think that I see some of that in what people post here in CA.  To be frank, I think that I see some of that in the posts of Green.  If I sound a bit confused as to Green, it is probably because I may be confused.

4)  Yes, I do agree that if we as a denomination place EGW above the Bible, we are a cult.  The same can be said   if we place her on the same level as the cannon of Scripture.  In honesty, at one time I  did.  I was wrong.  That is a very dangerous position.  It violates both the teachings of the Bible and those of EGW.

5) Ellen White was (is) a very real gift of God to the SDA denomination. But, today two (2) positions on her exist within the SDA Church that are dangerous and wrong.  At one extreme are some people who dismiss her as being of  no value to little value.   Such people might equate her to that of Billy Graham, or less.  At the other extreme are those who place her on the same level of the Bible and may even make her canonical. Neither of these positions are the official teachings of the SDA denomination.  Both are dangerous and wrong. 

Well, Rossw, I have attempted to answer your question.

 

Quote

I would warn any person reading this site that what you are reading does not represent the the SDA church teachings. We may be struggling with the subject of WO and how God works with His created creatures but we do n to believe in cultism and we are not an EGW cult. Much shame has been brought on her name. Her counsels on not equating her writings with the Bible have in the past and continue also continue to be ignored. We as SDA's believe our salvation comes only from God and a relationship with Him. 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Robert's post above mine is of value.

[Kevin H]

On July 23, 2016 at 10:24 AM, Rossw said:

The problem is deciding what was inspired and what wasn't. If she was inaccurate she is no longer a prophet.

That was a "Test" of a prophet started by the movement "Fundamentalism" in the 1800s and comes from taking 2 texts, one from Deuteronomy and one from Jeremiah that they read a lot more into the words than it is saying. We got a similar but more liberal approach in what the White Estate had published a number of years ago in a list called "Tests of a Prophet"  which is still preached and printed  in our basic Bible studies and Evangelistic meetings. A number had been critical of this and (No I don't know his name) but in our college Life and Writings of Ellen G. White class, the professor told about a conversation he had with the man who wrote that section and told us that the writer was saying that he was wrong and has since changed his mind. Sadly our presses and sermons' continue to print which the writer has come to see as wrong and which at least some of our official teaching sources are saying was in correct information.

[Tom Wetmore]

1 hour ago, Gregory Matthews said:

5) Ellen White was (is) a very real gift of God to the SDA denomination. But, today two (2) positions on her exist within the SDA Church that are dangerous and wrong.  At one extreme are some people who dismiss her as being of  no value to little value.   Such people might equate her to that of Billy Graham, or less.  At the other extreme are those who place her on the same level of the Bible and may even make her canonical. Neither of these positions are the official teachings of the SDA denomination.  Both are dangerous and wrong. 

I might add to that one more apparent position still in existence in the Church that I have encountered that is equally, or even more, dangerous. There are those who will defer to what EGW says over a plain reading of Scripture, the cultish view of EGW that you referred to in the previous paragraph. It even gets carried to the extreme of looking almost exclusively to EGW's writings to determine what they should believe and do, with little or no regard for Scripture. While perhaps not intentionally, or over strenuous objections or denials, they effectively elevate EGW's writings above the level of the Bible.  It is effectively their Scripture. And when confronted with Scripture that might erode or undermine what they believe EGW said, they focus their energy on explaining away, distinguish, or minimize the Scripture without any similar effort to even review or revise their understanding of EGW.  It becomes apparent that EGW takes clear priority over Scripture.

[Gregory Matthews]

Tom:   It  is often their understanding of what the Bible/EGW says that takes priority and not a priority of the actual written word.

 

[Green Cochoa]

5 hours ago, Robert said:

Note the following change in Ellen White's theological views:

 

3 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Robert's post above mine is of value.

Robert's post is simply incorrect.  The Bible supports BOTH of the statements by Ellen White which Robert assumed to be in contradiction to each other.  They do not, in fact, contradict.  Two points here are pertinent:

1)  There is a difference, and a huge one, between "doing wrong" and being "wicked."  That distinction exists in the dictionaries of today as well as in that of Ellen White's time.  To BE wicked is not at all the same as to do a wicked thing.  David was not a wicked king, but he did some wicked things.  God loved him.

2) The Bible teaches that God does not love the wicked, but He loves the righteous.  Both are sinners, right?  "For ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God."  If, because we have sinned, we are all "wicked," then what is the point of the Bible making its distinctions between the wicked and the righteous?  Nevertheless, it does do this.

Given these facts, I do not see Ellen White's statements on this point as being either contradictory, or representative of a change in her views.  Remember, she wrote under inspiration.  When we pick at the flaws in the inspired Writings, we show our foolishness, as Mrs. White put it.

 

Remember...

God loveth a cheerful giver.

For whom the LORD loveth, He correcteth.

As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten; be zealous, therefore, and repent.

 

And yet, Paul, quoting from Malachi 1:2-3, says "As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.  What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid." (Romans 9:13-14)

"The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth." (Psalm 11:5)

"The way of the wicked is an abomination unto the LORD: but he loveth him that followeth after righteousness." (Proverbs 15:9)

[Kevin H]

On ‎7‎/‎23‎/‎2016 at 8:45 PM, Rossw said:

Are you using those examples as an effort to lessen the authority of the Bible even though there is perfectly logical Biblical explanations for those examples which would prove they aren't innaccurate per the context? 

Your making yourself look like a humanist Bible basher instead of a Christian...that's just the appearance here.

No, we are using these lessons because we are Seventh-day Adventists and not Southern Baptists. For centuries the Bible had been assumed to be inspired (actually words and books are not inspired but the people who wrote them were). Until Evolution became popular,there were good people and bad people yet  most people believed in God and believed that the Bible was inspired.

In the mid-1800s with the rise of Evolution, people started to become atheists and began questioning the Bible being inspired. These people started to see the Bible as purely human in origin and that it was full of fictional stories about people who either never lived or if they did live was just a local person who had a lot of untrue stories added to their legend.

In reaction to this Christians, wanting to believe the Bible started for the first time in centuries to ask what Inspiration means. the conclusion they came up with is "Since God is perfect and all knowing, so his word must be perfect and not contain any errors" and the view of "Fundamentalism" developed.

Babylon started to fall (it was a process that was beginning at this time and the Millerites were the first to notice) Part of that fall was how churches became either liberal/unbelieving or believing but by way of Fundamentalism. The Lord protected us by a mistake, we believed in what was called the "Shut door" theory which limited our connection with the events in the church as a whole and by the time we learned that we were wrong the churches had already fallen into one of these 2 ditches. We were the remanant of those who did not fall into one of these 2 ditches. Although as we began interacting with others again we tended to be attracted to fundamentalism since we were in agreement with the ideas of belief in God and Creationism and that the Bible was inspired. But we originally disagreed about what Inspiration meant. It appears that W. W. Prescott was the first Fundamentalist in Adventism and he began teaching it. He influenced Stephen Haskell, A. G. Daniels, and D. M. Canright. When Mrs. White learned about this she requested Prescott to stop teaching and to work with her on her writings. She also invited Daniels and Canright as well. She gave them assignments that were as shocking to them as these messages are to some people here. They were absolutely horrified by her assignments for them. They had to correct inspired writings. Mrs. White told them that they had to look for errors and to make them as accurate as they Eventually Daniels and Prescott gave up Fundamentalism because it did not fit the facts about Mrs. White. Canright gave up Mrs. White because she did not meet the Fundamentalist standard.

There has been a friction in Adventism between fundamentalists and non-fundamentalists. Mrs. White would fight it. She and Stephen Haskell had many conversations and letters between them on this topic. Mrs. White trying to teach him to give up fundamentalism and sharing with him information that includes information that I've been trying to share here. Elder Haskell trying to convince her to become a fundamentalist and telling her how God works through her. Both were frustrated because neither could convince the other to their view.

There were also fundamentalists who were not on as friendly terms with Mrs. White as Haskell was. I read documents in the White Estate vault accusing Mrs. White of apostasy, of being controlled by Jesuits, or at least by people like Willie White her son (who they compared to Aaron's sons who was consumed by the Lord, and what was said about Samuel's sons. [note about Samuel's sons, there is some evidence that they were not as bad as described, but Samuel supported the tribes to the north and his sons supported the tribes in the south so it may have been more political than morality.] These articles were telling people not to read Mrs. White's current writings, that if they wanted to know what she was writing before she became an apostate and thus the truth to read what Elder's Washburn and a young man Elder Wilkinson and others who believed like them, were presenting of her writings. They quoted her massively but Mrs. White accused them of editing her work to force their ideas on our people and that they did not understand her message. (Elder Washburn's uncle was Elder Butler. Elder Butler wrote a series of articles in the Review opposing fundamentalism in the 1880s. While he and his nephew were in agreement in their dislike of Jones and Wagner in 1888 in the early 1900s they were at odds on the topic of Fundamentalism.)

Fundamentalism grew in Christianity as a whole in the first decade of the 20th century with a series of Pamphlets called "The Fundamentals." We could agree with most of what they said, but not everything. Then in 1919 they had a big Bible Conference in Philadelphia PA. Sadly many Adventists were planning to attend. Elder Daniels believed that if Fundamentalism got into the church that it would eventually destroy the church, so he fought it. He invited those who were on their way to Philadelphia to stop by in Washington DC for a Bible conference. They had different topics but one was the nature of inspiration. At first it looked like they made progress, only a few people, such as Elder Washburn and Wilkinson were upset with it. Sadly the group moved on to Philadelphia and brought home the message from Philadelphia and rejected the truth that God was trying to give his church in Washington D. C. Then came the (in places I've read some list the General Conference as 1922 others 1923) but in one of those years the Fundamentalists took over throwing Daniel's out of office, demoting W. W. Prescott. Willie White got to keep his job but it was it was stripped of all authority and influence. (basically Willie White was fired but was allowed to keep his office and paycheck). There was the throwing out the religion department of Washington Missionary College (who were Anti-Fundamentalists, Wilkinson was something like a dean or president of WMC and had been upset with the religion department), and there were witch hunts in the church for anti-fundamentalists. Now the new General Conference president, William Spicer, was considered almost as big a heretic as Daniels, Prescott and the White family. But he was elected because unlike Daniels he felt that Fundamentalism would not destroy the church. He was willing to keep his heresy to himself. Also he (as well as others) held two views of inspiration. Spicer was a Fundamentalist when it came to the Bible and a non-fundamentalist towards Mrs. White.

It was in the 1920s after that disastrous General Conference That Mrs. White first started to be called "An inspired Commentary on the Bible" (Earlier attempts were opposed by Mrs. White and Willie was not happy).  Kind of the unofficial view that has come into the church is the idea "Mrs. White is not infallible, it's just that she never made a mistake or an error." Yet there has also be an anti-fundamentalist group.

In the 1970s a student at Atlantic Union College was upset with what he was hearing in the "Spirit of Prophecy" class. He gave the professor some copies of lectures by a pastor he liked and suggested that the professor change his classes to what the pastor was teaching. The professor read the information. He then said "I hope that this pastor stays ignorant of the facts. If he were to learn the facts about Mrs. White he will not only reject Mrs. White but he will cause much trouble in the church. Well this pastor unfortunately did learn the truth and was horrified about what he learned and wrote a book about how horrible it was, his name was Walter Rea and the book was "The White Lie".

I know that some people here wish that we were all fundamentalists here, but the fundamentalists have had a tendency of falling away and those of us who reject fundamentalism tend to hear and read say Canright and Rea and still believe in Mrs. White and still believe in the Investigative Judgment.

I believe that the attacks we saw by Canright and Rea against Mrs. White, are not an issue and that we have the same issues with the Bible. In the end of time  many will be lost because their faith is in fundamentalism rather than the facts of scripture. What we saw in the Seventh-day Adventist church in the early 1980s with Mrs. White we are going to see in the church as a whole as the same problems that we found in Mrs. White will be pointed out in scripture. Those who want the Bible to fit the fundamentalist standard will give up the Bible the same way many gave up Mrs. White in the 1980s.

[Kevin H]

On ‎7‎/‎23‎/‎2016 at 11:05 PM, Rossw said:

Then, this begs the question, what do we take as our authority if we deny the divine inspiration and authority of the Bible or even EGW?

We believe in the divine inspiration and authority of the Bible and Mrs. White. What we do is accept the Bible and Mrs. White on their terms instead of the terms formed in the 1800s by falling Babylon.

[Robert]

35 minutes ago, Green Cochoa said:

Robert's post is simply incorrect.  The Bible supports BOTH of the statements by Ellen White which Robert assumed to be in contradiction to each other.  They do not, in fact, contradict.  

God is agape.  Agape loves its enemies, those who do wickedly. 

Luke 6:27 Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29 If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. 30 Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.

32 “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full.35 But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

[Gregory Matthews]

Green, you may pick at minor points in Robert's post.  But, the fact remains that over time the theological views of EGW changed (developed) on multiple issues.

Why not?  She was human.  She was not infallible.

 

 

[Robert]

5 hours ago, Green Cochoa said:

1)  There is a difference, and a huge one, between "doing wrong" and being "wicked."  That distinction exists in the dictionaries of today as well as in that of Ellen White's time.  To BE wicked is not at all the same as to do a wicked thing.  David was not a wicked king, but he did some wicked things.  God loved him.

" When you (i.e., EGW's son) feel tempted to speak impatient and fretful, remember the Lord sees you, and will not love you if you do wrong."

So Willie was wicked?

[Green Cochoa]

Kevin,

I have it through personal connections that Walter Rea, author of "The White Lie," was not motivated to write his book merely from a particular understanding or misunderstanding of the facts, but rather as a result, as is often the case, of some relationship issues with others in the church.  He became embittered, and turned his back on what he had formerly believed and taught. The specifics of his case are a personal matter with him.  But one should not incorrectly assume his book came only from a logical point of view, with no other motivation than that of "facts."

[Green Cochoa]

5 minutes ago, Robert said:

" When you (i.e., EGW's son) feel tempted to speak impatient and fretful, remember the Lord sees you, and will not love you if you do wrong."

So Willie was wicked?

1) The Bible is clear that God hates the wicked.  Those who do wickedly are, of course, doing wrong.  If one, therefore, continues in wrongdoing...

2) No, Willie wasn't wicked.

[Rossw]

Kevin, do you support Walter Rea's conclusions?

[Robert]

39 minutes ago, Green Cochoa said:

1) The Bible is clear that God hates the wicked.  Those who do wickedly are, of course, doing wrong.  If one, therefore, continues in wrongdoing...

2) No, Willie wasn't wicked.

1] Since all have sinned (past tense) and fall short (present continuous tense) of God's agape we must assume, according to your theology, that God hates all of us?

2] If Willie wasn't wicked (and you state he wasn't) then why did EGW tell her son, "remember the Lord sees you, and will not love you if you do wrong?"   Besides, later she instructed the church to "not teach your children that God does not love them when they do wrong"!

 

[Green Cochoa]

1 minute ago, Robert said:

1] Since all have sinned (past tense) and fall short (present continuous tense) of God's agape we must assume, according to your theology, that God hates all of us?

That is not true. If you read from the not-inspired version, that's what it says.  But the KJV does not say this.  In fact, it is possible to live without sinning.  Jesus came to show us how.  He did not come to live a perfect life because we can't or so that we don't have to.  Remember, God bids us to be perfect.  We are told not to err.  We are told to keep His commandments.  "All His biddings are enablings," Mrs. White says.  I believe that, do you?

[Robert]

4 minutes ago, Green Cochoa said:

That is not true. If you read from the not-inspired version, that's what it says.  But the KJV does not say this.  In fact, it is possible to live without sinning.  Jesus came to show us how.  He did not come to live a perfect life because we can't or so that we don't have to.  Remember, God bids us to be perfect.  We are told not to err.  We are told to keep His commandments.  "All His biddings are enablings," Mrs. White says.  I believe that, do you?

a] Jesus primarily came to save us form under the law!  See Gal 3:10-13

b] Only then is He our example

Keep in mind 1 John 1:8 and Ellen White:

"So long as Satan reigns, we shall have self to subdue, besetting sins to overcome; so long as life shall last, there will be no stopping place, no point which we can reach and say, I have fully attained." AA 560,561

Attained to what?  Perfection!

Only "in Christ" do we stand perfect now and in the judgment.

[Robert]

10 minutes ago, Robert said:

2] If Willie wasn't wicked (and you state he wasn't) then why did EGW tell her son, "remember the Lord sees you, and will not love you if you do wrong?"   Besides, later she instructed the church to "not teach your children that God does not love them when they do wrong"!

 

My point  is Ellen White wasn't infallible....You aren't ...I'm not, and the Pope isn't for sure... 

[Green Cochoa]

1 minute ago, Robert said:

a] Jesus primarily came to save us form under the law because.  See Gal 3:10-13

b] Only then is He our example

Keep in mind 1 John 1:8 and Ellen White:

"So long as Satan reigns, we shall have self to subdue, besetting sins to overcome; so long as life shall last, there will be no stopping place, no point which we can reach and say, I have fully attained." AA 560,561

Attained to what?  Perfection!

Only "in Christ" do we stand perfect now and in the judgment.

No, not perfection.  The glory of God.  We will NEVER reach it.  We will continue toward that throughout eternity.  This is why the KJV uses "come short."  To say "fall" implies having been at a higher level, and to have descended from it.  But to say "come short" of God's glory implies simply that we do not measure up to it.

5 minutes ago, Robert said:

My point  is Ellen White wasn't infallible....You aren't ...I'm not, and the Pope isn't for sure... 

She wasn't, I'm not, you aren't, David wasn't, Paul wasn't, Moses wasn't, John wasn't, Peter wasn't, none of the Bible authors were….but GOD is, and GOD inspired the Scriptures/Writings.  What Mrs. White published was inspired by the Infallible Spirit of God.  At times, angels even gave her direct quotes.  At other times, her thoughts were inspired and she had the task of choosing the best words to express them.  At times, she was given a vision in which the truths she needed to write were communicated to her clearly.  She had thousands of visions over the course of her lifetime--which appears to be more than perhaps all of the Bible authors combined.  Of course, she wrote many times the number of pages of material as one can find in the Bible as well.  Aren't we blessed?  

[Gregory Matthews]

As  to Walter Rea and The White Lie:  Green is correctly pointing out that some relationship issues existed.  Kevin is also correct in suggesting that Walter R's faulty understanding of inspiration as it applied to EGW was incorrect.  Personally I give greater emphasis to the faulty understanding that Walter Rae had.  I do that  due to the fact that I see the same happening in many people. They start off with a rigid approach to her words and sentences.  When faced with the logical problems that arise from their approach, they throw out the baby with the bath water and go the opposite, as I think that Rae did.