Leaderboard

We can either study the Bible with it's historical, cultural, geographical and linguistic context; or else we read the Bible and submit it to the context of our imagination. I find the context to be very compelling arguments. If you want to remain ignorant of what others have found compelling then how do you expect to fairly present your view? While not dealing with this topic here is a Video of the author to give you a general idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIfCbnhnmYg

jsm, It is a common fault of most human languages that the masculine gender is used where gender is indeterminate, or could be both. For example, suppose I were to stand on the pulpit and announce "The list of new church officers is in your bulletin. Let anyone who is in favor raise HIS hand." Would anything think I were implying that only men could vote, and not women? Or let's look at a Biblical example, James 1:5-8: "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord. A double minded man is unstable in all his ways." Notice that here the masculine gender is used. The pronouns are "he" and "him" and it even says "that man." Yet is there anyone on earth who would deny that this passage applies equally to women? It starts out by saying "If ANY of you...." Thus we see clearly illustrated that use of the masculine gender cannot be taken as definitive restriction only to men in application. If we really and truly and honestly want to be good, responsible students of the Bible, then we must remember the requirement that everything be taken in context--including cultural context, understanding how it is that people normally speak, and what they mean. 1 Timothy 3:1-7 is probably the text most commonly used by people who deceive themselves that they are standing by the Bible in opposing women's ordination. But in fact, the honest truth is that it betrays poor scholarship, and a misuse of Scripture. If the Apostles believed that women could never be leaders in the church, never be ordained, then how do we explain Junia and Phoebe, who Paul mentions favorably in Romans 16:1,2, 7? Phoebe is called in the original Greek a diakonon, the Greek word from which we get the English word "deacon," and Acts 6 shows us that the New Testament Church ordained deacons (there is no separate word in the Greek New Testament for female deacons), so we know that Phoebe was ordained. Also in verse 2 in the original Greek, Paul calls her a prostatis. which means "woman placed in charge of others," according to Thayer's Bible Dictionary, the standard work used by most Bible translators. Then in verse seven Paul calls Junia one of the apostles. Most scholars recognize that the name is feminine in the Greek, and must have referred to a woman. When you take an extreme position based on a questionable use of Scripture, especially something that depends on taking Scripture in an overly literal manner, and it leads you to contradict other clear statements in Scripture, that should be a signal to you that there is something wrong with the way you are using Scripture. Remember, Paul instructed Timothy: "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." (2 Tim. 2:15; NKJV)

It is always good to have the book in your hand. But anyone can read Appendix C of the EGW compilation, Daughters of God, by going to White Estates at https://egwwritings.org/ Then in the left hand column, click on books under Ellen G. White writings, then click on Daughters of God, then click on Appendix C. I have it on my White Estates CD of Ellen G. White's writings, so that is where I read Appendix C of Daughters of God. The CD also has a good search engine.

This is coincidental for me, who just found a Daughters of God in our used books section...

Pam: I have passed the URL on to clergy friends. They think it is a riot. Now, I am attempting to find a similar one for female clergy, but I have been unable to do so. Can you help me out in this? Thanks.

Jackson, if you had two candidates you had to choose between to hire for a sensitive position in your company, and one of them did wrong because of being deceived, while the other one deliberately and knowingly did wrong, which one would you regard as the best choice? See, if you apply Paul's statement the way you are taking it, then it does not make sense. You are the one who is introducing confusion by not being willing to make the effort to understand what the Bible writers were really saying. Even when corrected by the clearest evidence, you choose to be intransigent. That is not virtue. That is not faith. That is merely perverse human stubbornness. You seem to be claiming that we are supposed to go by whatever it says in the King James Version of the Bible. Is that what you really believe? Or do you suppose it is the Bible in its originial languages that we are to regard as inspired? You still haven't explained how you would explain the wrong placement of the comma in Luke 23:43, which makes it read like Jesus was promising the thief on the Cross that he would be with Jesus that very day in Paradise--when John 20:17 plainly tells us that even by Sunday morning, Jesus had not yet ascended to His Father. Do you believe the translators of the various versions of the Bible were divinely inspired? Are they the basis of your faith? You are seizing upon statements by Ellen G. White that apply in specific situations, and ignoring her plain and explicit statements that call for women to be ordained, and that call for women to labor in the Gospel ministry. Your argument is with the Spirit of Prophecy, not with me. Again, in case you have not seen them, here are some explicit statements by Sister White that call for women to be ordained, and that call for women to serve in the Gospel ministry: There is nothing in the context of either statement that changes the clear and explicit meaning of them. Again, I recommend that you read Appendix C of Daughters of God.

No. It is not widely used by SDAs. No, it is not considered to be a reliable authority and I have commented on this previously. Exactly. This is a major problem with the Concordant Version. A second major issue is that translations should be done with the uses of a lexicon, not a concordance. A concordance is not a great authority as to the meaning of a word. A concordance only tells us how that word has been translated. I doubt that very many SDAs have ever heard of the Concordant Version. I have never seen it cited in any SDA publication.

Using man as his tool, Satan has developed a kingdom (the Bible refers to it as “the kingdom of this world”) that is based entirely on the principle of self and which is in complete opposition and contradiction to the “kingdom of heaven.” Everything, therefore, that goes to make up this worldly system (kosmos) — nationalism, tribalism, politics, education, commerce, recreation, sports, social clubs, technology, etc. — is founded upon the principle of love of self, even though at times this principle may not be obvious. According to 1 John 2:16, “all that is in the world” (i.e., without exception) is based or founded upon lust (i.e., love of self)....In capitalism only those who are strong-willed, those who are powerful, make it to the top; the rest are failures.... [Pastor Sequeira]

Jackson, let me put it as simply as possible. If you do not recognize the absolute requirement of God that you must take everything in the Bible in context, including historical and cultural context which informs us what situation the Bible writer was addressing, then you are not being HONEST about the Word of God. Remember, it is HIS Word, not yours. You do not get to be arbitrary and seize upon some simplistic, overly literal interpretation, and claim that you are being faithful to His Word. If that is your attitude toward the Word of God, then you will have much to be ashamed of in the Judgment, for the way you dared to mishandle God's Word. Look again at 1 Timothy 2:15. If you take it exactly the way it reads in most English translations, then you will have to conclude that women are saved by having babies. Which is heresy. Women are saved by faith in the blood of Christ, the same as men. Do you deny this? Do you see the need here to make the necessary effort to understand what Paul was really saying? Do you see where you have no conscientious choice but to conclude that most translators got this wrong? Or what about Luke 23:43, which in almost every English translation gives Jesus' words on the Cross to the thief at His side with the comma placed before the word "today," instead of after it: "And Jesus said to him, 'Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.'" Is the placement of the comma inspired? Are we to go by this just as it reads? Could Jesus keep that promise, if He was promising the thief that he would be with Jesus in the kingdom on that same day? Jesus did not ascend to Heaven that day, He slept in the tomb until Sunday morning. Note that Jesus said to Mary after His Resurrection: "Do not cling to Me, for I HAVE NOT YET ASCENDED TO MY FATHER...." (John 20:17; NKJV; emphasis supplied)

Jackson, did you read what I wrote in my posts concerning 1 Timothy 2:11-15? You are basing your theology on mistranslations that ignore the situation in Ephesus that Paul was addressing in his counsels to Timothy. Paul was not saying men only should have all authority in the church because Adam was created first and Eve was deceived. Paul was correcting the errors of the Artemis cult which claimed that Eve was created first, and her eating of the Tree of Knowledge supposedly conferred upon all women a secret wisdom.

My family has had State Farm forever, never any problems. Had to change to another insurance company when we first moved to Massachusetts, but when they came back we went right back to them.

Let me also recommend to anyone interested in the issue of women's ordination in our denominational history and in Sister White's counsels, that they read Appendix C of the book, Daughters of God. There you will find, among other things, that Ellen G. White herself personally participated in ordaining by the laying on of hands deaconesses, and she wrote in the Review and Herald in 1895 that women should be ordained. You will also learn that the General Conference session in 1881 passed a resolution that women should be ordained, including for the gospel ministry. This was then referred to the General Conference Executive Committee, which consisted of three men at the time, who did not act on it. You will also see Ellen G. White's explicit statements that the Holy Spirit equips men and women to labor in the gospel ministry, and that women should labor in the gospel ministry, even contrasting such women to men who may be negligent in visiting the flock. Since deaconesses were ordained in Ellen G. White's presence (and even with her personal participation in the laying on of hands), that would surely have been a good opportunity for the Lord to make an objection to this through the prophet, if it were not in harmony with His will.

because miserable people love to be around other miserable people... being around happy people makes miserable people even more miserable...and sometimes it can make them infuriated with happy people..

Hmmm... I didn't see any posts regarding State Farm. I don't know how its rates compare with the other companies', but I do know they have great service. I've been with State Farm ever since I first started driving, at age 16 [more than 60 years ago! and when I was living on the East Coast]. I recently had two different times when uninsured motorists ran into me (one when I wasn't even in the car); and both times I caught the driver and turned in his (bogus) information to my insurance company. They traced it down and found the guys had no current coverage. So each time I had the work done on my own Uninsured Motorist coverage. I didn't have to pay any deductible, and the company adjuster agreed with my own body shop in the amount of work needing to be done. The results were that the car looked good as new afterward. [bTW, I'm driving an '06 model, which I bought new.] I have State Farm for all my insurance needs--homeowners, etc. And 25 years ago I lost 42 trees on my property from an arson fire in our neighborhood. All the smoke damage and loss were covered, after the deductible in my homeowners' policy was paid.

If the school is public isn't this an issue of the separation of church and state? I remember prayer in the classroom when I was in Grade One. I came from a secular home and I think that this exercise did instill a sense of respect for the spiritual in me. That is where I learned the Lord's Prayer, for our morning prayer was a recitation of it. My memory is a bit fuzzy but I seem to remember a Bible reading as well. So in answer to your question I would say a likely Yes.

There are many things which we think we have to choose between A and B of which the Seventh-day Adventists church tends to pick the best of those two. But there may be options c and d that we have not even thought of yet.

The Syrian army are dropping barrel bombs on palestinians in the Yaramouk refugee camp and no one bats an eye lid. the Nursra group have beheaded a number of palestinians who they accused of being a part of the palestinian militia that controlled the camp. Food and aid is not permitted in and people are starving if they cannot get a safe route out of the camp. Yet no rallies anywhere, no facebook campaigns for UN resolution and security council action.. Yet imagine what the response would be if it were jewish people doing the persecuting and not muslim..?

There are three big issues for me. The first and biggest is the way we treat each other. Sadly I see on both sides a lot of unkindness and I have received a lot of unkindness for the information I've presented. In 1888 Mrs. White was more concerned about how we treated each other rather than who was right and who was wrong. I keep watching my heart and fear falling into the same unkindness and one-ups-man-ship, and worry about having fallen into this. The second issue is that I honestly believe that the Bible teaches women's ordination. If it passes in San Antonio we will at least have freedom of choice. Those of us who believe that women's ordination is Biblical have the freedom to listen to both men and women. Those who do not believe it's Biblical can still have the choice of attending churches with only a man pastor. (I have received flack from others but I also support that for churches which are way out in the country where our members don't have a choice should only have male pastors.) The third issue is our willingness to dig deeper into the Bible. For example we have Numbers 15:38 Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them fringes in the borders of their garments throughout their generations, and that they put upon the fringe of the borders a ribband of blue: (KJV) If you were living in the ancient world and say traveling with a caravan going from city to city, do you know what that verse would mean to you? Archaeology has discovered that this tassel was a sign of being an ordained priest. As the merchants would go from city to city they would see some people wearing this. If they needed spiritual help they could approach someone with this tassel. When they came into Israel/Judah everyone was wearing this tassel. It was an invitation to approach anyone for their spiritual needs. Men and women. Granted we cannot argue more than that this was a symbol for the Hebrews being a kingdom of priests and the priesthood of all believers. However some who have opposed or been indifferent to women's ordination say that if God commanded in Numbers for women to wear this sign of being an ordained priest, what right do I have to say that they cannot be ordained? On the other hand, we find that 200 years before Jesus there was a Rabbi named Jesus Ben Sirach. His writings were considered for the Bible but finally decided not to be put into the Bible. He had a bad marriage and while he said some good things about God he said some very bad things about women. He argued that the Jews should STOP having women priests and women Rabbis. How do you stop having something unless you already have them. I have had professors who I respect say that in the Old Testament there were women priests. Now I only heard one of their arguments but I need to study here more. (the argument that I have heard is that the linguistics of some of the psalms indicate that they were to be lead out by a woman priest-- now my field is the history so I don't have the linguistic background to evaluate this.) Anyway with Jesus Ben Sirach's wanting Jews to STOP having women priests and Rabbis, he also wanted women to stop wearing this sign of being an ordained priest. He wanted ONLY men to wear that tassel. Thus replacing the word of God for the traditions of man. It was because of Jesus Ben Sirach that Harod's temple had something that the Tabernacle and Soloman's temple did NOT have; a court of women where women were allowed no further. Also because of Jesus Ben Sirach, the ordination of women became a hot topic in Judaism. The liberal Rabbis, such as the school of Hillel were strongly influenced by Rabbi Ben Sirach and they would not ordain women. The conservative Rabbis, such as the school of Shammai did ordain women Rabbis. Now if we were to travel back to the time of Jesus and listen to a rabbi teaching. He might be standing or walking in which people would stand or walk with him. However if he was to sit in a chair we would notice something happening. First there would be approximately 82 give or take people who would sit at the Rabbi's feet. Everyone else would stand. With some Rabbis there would be women sitting among the 82 who are sitting at the Rabbi's feet, and women standing listening just like the men. However for other Rabbis the 82 would be all men. And only men would stand listening and all the women would do all sorts of hospitality tasks and try to listen some but their focus was on the hospitality tasks. What we will be seeing is that the Rabbis wanted to have about 12 disciples who had basically 24 hour access to the Rabbi. They represented the 12 tribes. When traveling they would all sleep in the same room. They were privileged to participate in the late night talks with the rabbi and other disciples. They had to be the same sex as the Rabbi. However Rabbis also wanted to have a group to represent the 70 elders who helped Moses. Thus the about 12 and about 70 would give us 82 more or less. These were the full time disciples of the Rabbi. They were ordained by being allowed to sit at his feet. Only ordained Rabbis were allowed to sit at a Rabbi's feet when he was sitting and teaching. While the 12 had to be the same sex as the Rabbi, if it was a Rabbi from the school of Hillel or other liberal rabbinical school the 70 would also be all men. However if the Rabbi was from the school of Shammai or another conservative school the 70 could be both men and women and yes there were women Rabbis. We have their names in Rabbinical lists (an orthodox Jew responded to the discovery of names of women Rabbis by saying "Her husband must have been the Rabbi, but they forgot his name so they wrote down the wife's name.) Those standing listening to the Rabbi are the NON-ordained laymen. Once again if it was from a conservative school such as the school of Shammai both men and women will stand. If it was a liberal school such as the school of Hillel, again it would only be the lay men who were allowed to stand The women were required to keep busy with hospitality tasks serving the men. This is the historical context of Luke 10:38-42King James Version (KJV) 38 Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain village: and a certain woman named Martha received him into her house. 39 And she had a sister called Mary, which also sat at Jesus' feet, and heard his word. 40 But Martha was cumbered about much serving, and came to him, and said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me. 41 And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things: 42 But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her. According to the liberal schools of the Rabbis the women were supposed to serve when a Rabbi sat and taught. Unordained lay men were to stand and ORDAINED Rabbis were allowed to sit at the Rabbi's feet to hear the word. Jesus could have said to Mary "Martha and the school of Hillel are right, women should be serving so please join your sister." Second and even more shocking is that Jesus could have said to both of them: Martha, you do not need to keep serving, you should stand and listen to me with the laymen, and Mary, women are not to be ordained as Rabbis, so it would be wise for you to also stand and listen." However Jesus allowed Mary to sit at his feet, the position that says that she is being ordained as a Rabbi. That she is allowed to be one of the 70 full time disciples who are studying to be Rabbis. Do you think that Jesus knew about the debate over women's ordination that was going on among the Rabbis? Do you think that Jesus knew how the Rabbis ordained people? Do you think Jesus knew what he was doing and what it was saying when he allowed Mary to SIT at his feet? If Jesus would not take ordination away from Mary, what right to we do to take it away from women?

We must humbly pray for those who are blinded by the headship theology.

Lyndon said in post # 6: Fact check: Ben Carson has not announced that he is running for President. As to Ben Carson running: It may very well be that he will run and will announce such on May 4. On the other hand, he may decide not to run. Until he files the necessary paper-work he is not a candidate for President of the U.S. Who knows, perhaps he will announce that he is running for President of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists at the July election. Some seem to think that he would be a better GC President than the President of the U.S.

Gail, I think an explicit Scripture, relating to your second question, would be Ecclesiastes 9:5-6. "For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished..." While a human being is dead they have no emotion. But Paul was "persuaded that neither death nor life" has the power to separate a person from God's love. (Rom 8:38-39.) So it is true, death cannot separate anyone from God's love, even though the person no longer "exists". (And of course God is no respecter of persons... whether Christian or non-Christian, God's love endures for those that are dead.) I definitely agree with your thought that it is "the eternal nature of God that makes His love endure." The love of God is such a wonderful theme !

Another story regarding Hacksaw Ridge: http://religiousliberty.tv/gibson-filming-project-based-on-war-hero-who-refused-to-carry-weapon.html

Pope Francis believes in Unity in diversity, not one church in unity. This kind of motto will attract a lot of people!

Making issues where there are none. Whipping up right-wing hysteria to foment and widen the divide in our country.

BTW, I was not saying 'Fox News is bad'. I mean, I think it is, but who cares what I think about it? I was saying 'I choose not to watch it, so why bring it here?' It means I'm increasingly not bothering to come here either. Surely this place was created for something else?

Perfect example Lyndon, “I did not even send this frame because it’s very wide and super busy and Bush is super-overexposed because he was in the sun and Obama and the others are in the shade,” Mills wrote, per Times Public Editor Margaret Sullivan. Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/george-w-bush-not-cropped-selma-nytimes-115896.html#ixzz3TvJc0SXz

I was alluding to the fact that so many of the topics on Club Adventist seem to have their origin on Fox News, and gently suggesting that although I appreciate the efforts of those who share, my choice to avoid Fox News means I tend to avoid such topics here as well. I wonder whether perhaps we can find some new and different sources of topics and views... Not trying to silence anyone, just suggesting that continuing to try to lead some of us horses to the stagnant water is probably not increasing the incidence of drinking it...

Hi I thought every one might be interested in a new Adventist multimedia project based on the Conflict Of Ages series. The project is a multimedia online book featuring full screen video, symphony orchestra soundtrack and narration by respected English shakespearean theater actor Barry Boys. And all of this is being done on what would be considered a “no-budget” project. Please take a look at it at http://www.theheavenmovie.com/ and let me know what you think. I am always looking for feedback and input. Also if you like it then please help as I am doing this on my own with almost no budget. Here are some ways you can help.... 1. Pray for the project and myself. 2. Tell a friend about it. 3. Signup for a small recurring donation http://www.theheavenmovie.com/donate/ Thanks very much and God bless.

Thanks Stan glad you liked it. Its been a lot of work to get to this stage:)