Leaderboard

Life asked of me: I am a bit surprised that you would need to ask what should be the basis of one deciding that the opinion/statement of another was correct. As I recall, you are of advanced age and even older in years than I am. I would have thought that you would have over the years developed your personal rational for deciding whether or not the opinion/statement of another should be accepted as fact. Well, you have asked the question. Without listing in any order of priority, I will share my response to your question. I will suggest that the following could be a partial basis for accepting the opinion/statement as accurate: 1) The background of the person making the statement. A person who has been given a Nobel prize for chemistry is potentially better informed on an issue involving a chemical subject than would be a clergy-person. A physician who specializes in operating on people is probably better able to do so than would be a child psychologist. 2) The logic of the opinion/statement. A statement to the effect that 1 + 2 equals 11, is not logical on its face. However, not only might it be correct, but it would be correct if that statement was made in the context of a binary system. 3) The general agreement of the community at large as to the correctness of the opinion/statement. As a general statement, it is accepted that the normal, typical, human cells contains 46 chromosomes. However, general statements may be incorrect when applied to a specific situation. There are human cells that contain only 23 chromosomes. In addition, I lived through the time when our knowledge base transitioned from a belief that the normal/typical human contained 48 chromosomes to 46. Further, we now know that there are atypical exceptions to my general statement. 4) The relation of an excepted standard to the opinion/statement. If you want to know the size of a meter of length, you might compare it to a bar of platinum-iridium alloy maintained at the International bureau of Weights and Measures in France. Or you might compare it to the distance of 1,650,763.73 wavelengths of a certain line in the spectrum of a Krypton isotope of atomic number of 86. However, you might need to consider the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction, or you might not need to so consider. So, even simple issues may be complex. 5) The relation of the opinion/statement to a personally accepted standard which you chose to apply to the opinion/standard. For some issues, some people might want to compare to the Quran. Others might want to compare to the Bible. Others might want to compare to what their Mother/Father taught them as a child. Life, as you will probably agree, I have not exhausted listing the criteria that one might use to determine whether or not my (or anyone elses) opinion/statement was correct. I trust that I have stimulated you thinking on the subject. However, as you read my response, keep in mind that today is April the first, which should be significant to you. Regardless of that fact, each of the above statements is factually correct. By the way, each of them could probably be considered to be high-school level of knowledge, in our society today. Also, keep in mind that my wife, who knows me well, says that I have a very dry sense of humor which sometimes is not easy to understand.

Happy to try that, but probably well over half of the posts in this thread have been off topic, so all that is likely to do is spread the mess out. What is needed is a change of attitude and approach.

I'll be happy to do this....I chose Romans 1:18-32 NASB

Way past the event, as I have been AWOL.... I read of Neil's passing on FB and made some comments there at the time.. I too was amazed how long he survived with the type of cancer he had. The picture was taken in October 2012 when my husband Sammy and I, and friends with whom we were travelling, met Neil in his home town of Coos Bay. We had a real gabfest and I was impressed at his focus on helping others in his church and community. He could stir but came across as a concerned and compassionate man. His last post on FB was a poster advising everyone to make the most of time with friends and loved ones. His time was fast running out and he must have known that..

I believe the "time of trouble such as never was" (Daniel 12:1) will be the 7 last plagues. I believe that "time" BEGINS with a great resurrection. Multitudes of those who sleep in the dust will come forth. Some to everlasting life. Some to "shame and everlasting condemnation". I believe those who were knowingly rebellious against the LORD, without repentance will be resurrected at this time. This is the Second Coming DAY. This is judgment DAY. This is Yom Kippur - Day of Atonement. The knowingly unrepentant will be "cut off" from God. They will be left to suffer the plagues. I do NOT believe they will be resurrected AGAIN after 1000 years, to be judged AGAIN, and executed AGAIN. "Everlasting condemnation" is a done deal. No one comes back from this judgment. The "time of trouble such as NEVER WAS" is not the same as the "time of Jacob's trouble". Jacob's trouble will be the final period of persecution by the "little horn" leading up to the Second Coming. What makes "sense" to you Pickle, does not make sense to me. We disagree. I post my beliefs, and you post yours. Folks reading our posts can make up their own minds. Rachel

Pickle, When you write "we know", - what you MEAN is "I know" OR SDAs who believe in EGW "know", or people who agree with YOU "know". I - on the other hand - do NOT "know", and I do not agree with your interpretation. When you word your posts with "we know", it just sounds closed minded. Many Bible prophecies are duel prophecies. They have more than one application, but only ONE final fulfillment. In Dan 8:17, the angel told Daniel, "the vision refers to the time of the END". I do NOT believe that 333BC (when Alexander the Great fought Persia) was "the time of the END", nor do I believe that 1798 began "the time of the END".

When the Bible "disrupts what we think SHOULD be true, we rarely bend our belief structure to match.... We come up with explanations faster than a two bit magician comes up with fake doves up his sleeve."

I am listening to all sides of this issue. I am only wanting to share here some of what is being discussed. We tend to think that we have the correct interpretation of these verses. But there are arguments that as you look at things such as context and language that we are reading into the text things that are not in the actual context of what is being discussed. We are so sure of our traditions that we don't realize that we are misreading the Bible. We think it is so clear, but those who look at the Rich man and Lazarus think that here they see the Bible clearly teaching about hell. Or absent from the body and present with the Lord, or one man esteemes one day above another. etc. The verses appear crystal clear to these people, but we know that they are wrong. And there is evidence that we may be in the same boat on this topic. Yes, I believe that the Leviticus references are conclusive enough but we may be reading the wrong conclusion into those words.

Yes Kevin(wrx)! Kevin(wrx) answer Kevin(wrx) please #levity

This kind of violence is why we need a judgment and Jesus to come again to make everything right

You have got to be kidding!!! Can't believe a full background check would not have turned something up. But people do have the ability to hide their deepest issues. Very sad for those kids, family and school.

Sure it does. The story clearly says they were angels, and just as clearly says that the Sodomites thought they were men. It is just as possible, or more so, to conclude that these myths were Satan's counterfeit of the virgin birth. Doesn't gods impregnating women, and that's how the sun god Hercules came to be, sound like a counterfeit of the virgin birth? Another simple conclusion is that these myths are a corrupted record of ancient scientific genetic engineering. After all, in the book of Enoch, the crossing resulted in giants that ate a lot. People had to feed these giants, and once they ran out of food, the giants started eating people. And that was one of the reasons for the Flood. To me that account sounds like a corrupted version of: Before the Flood the scientists discovered ways to tamper with the genome, and they concocted dinosaurs to use in sport and/or war. The T. rexes ate a lot, and even ate people. And as Genesis puts it, since "all flesh," not just mankind, had corrupted its way upon the earth, God wiped it all out with the Flood. If you had read Gen. 6 for the first time in light of 1 John, without picking up any ideas from anywhere else, you would not assume that the sons of God of Gen. 6 were angels.

Tom, I can see how one might argue that "every male among the men" in 17:23 shows that "men" must be inclusive of both genders. Still, vs. 27 says that "all the men" were circumcised, and thus "men" in vs. 27 is not being used to include both genders. One might also argue that "men" in Gen. 19:5, 8 is inclusive, and thus that the angels (or one of them) actually looked like women. But I think that we can find enough verbs with masculine endings within Gen. 19 to show that these visitors appeared as men, not women. Plus, we have Lot in 19:2 calling the two 'enowsh "my lords," and I doubt you would say that Lot was calling a woman "my lord," even out of respect or hospitality.

But Kevin, you are sounding inconsistent. If you don't want to read into the Bible ideas that aren't there, then you can't just uncritically swallow what any scholar says about the supposed background of this or that passage, because doing so may very well result in reading into a passage something that isn't there. And what the professor said about cross dressing is one example. If you wanted to find a prostitute, you went to the temple. One could therefore conclude that prostitution is fine today if the reason why God forbade something had only to do with false worship. Rather, I think what was going on was that Satan used false religious beliefs to lead people to do things that inside they felt were wrong.

Mere assertions don't make it true. I remember how a college professor explained that the reason God forbade cross dressing was because that was involved in pagan worship. Then I discovered how the Ency. Britt. said that the Hittites forbade bestiality, except with horses, because that was part of the ancient horse sacrifice. Such reasoning then leads us to conclude that bestiality today is fine, unless it's part of pagan worship. I seriously doubt that you can produce any archaeological finds that show us what the ancient Sodomites believed.

Sure He's loving, and that's why He has condemned homosexual actions with such clarity, giving Sodom as an example. It's because of love. I think it clear that Jude is telling us that a major problem with Sodom was homosexual actions.

"Know therefore and understand: from the time that the word went out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the time of an anointed prince, there shall be seven weeks; and for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with streets and moat, but in a troubled time. 26 After the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing, and the troops of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed. He shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall make sacrifice and offering cease; and in their place shall be an abomination that desolates, until the decreed end is poured out upon the desolator.” (Dan.9:25-27 NRSV) I don't see how The Messiah (or the Anointed One) will break the covenant. It's interesting that you bring up the nagiyd vs. the sar. I have noticed that as well. There is also a difference between the "covenant" and the "holy covenant" mentioned in Daniel 9. The "covenant" is the treaty between Israel and the antichrist power; and the "holy covenant" is the covenant between God and Israel. It is obvious that you are well studied as well as eloquent. Forgive me if I'm not in that same genre; I'm no theologian or expert expositor; I'm just a guy trying to find His way with the guidance of the Spirit and the Word. I have neither the energy nor the time to rigorously respond to all of your questions and concerns about my beliefs. Suffice it to say I have been studying myself for over 40 years; and - although I drank the traditional SDA Kool-Aid for many years; I don't buy it now. I must find my own way to the Kingdom. Like I stated before, I claim the right to be wrong (as I have often been in my journey to the Kingdom). For me personally (maybe not for you), there is a difference between a belief/opinion and a dogma. My mind is open to beliefs/opinions (like "day-for year", 1844, 1798 papal antichrist, etc); but it is closed to dogma (like Jesus being God and the only Name under heaven by which people can be saved), Sabbath worship, etc.). I won't argue with you; I won't change our mind; and you won't change mine. That being said, I respect your scholarship and organization.

Similarly, look up my wording. The Sodomites were already slated for destruction before the two angels ever got to the gates, much less Lot's home. What angels do you think the Sodomites had already tried to rape before that last night? If you can't come up with any, then your proposed interpretation of Jude's words cannot possibly be correct. Do you have any other example of where people were destroyed by God for the crime of doing something they had no idea they were doing? Jude describes a two-fold crime: (a) giving themselves over to fornication, and (b) going after strange flesh. In my view, fornication includes all sexual perversions, and thus includes homosexual actions, among other things. If Jude is looking back at the story of Genesis, a point of agreement, what in that story would constitute fornication, if not homosexual actions?

Do you have any evidence that the Sodomites knew that Lot's two guests were angels? And since Abraham's intercession shows that destruction was already imminent, are you saying that the Sodomites were already before that incident trying to rape angels? In reality, "other flesh of a different kind" can easily refer to homosexual actions, since such activity by definition involves flesh of a different kind. I know a homosexual who acknowledged that the plumbing wasn't created to work that way. Throughout the realm of nature, sexual activity serves a specific purpose, and that purpose is impossible within the context of homosexual actions. For these reasons, I don't see how anyone can dispute what Jude was referring to.

Where did you find that? I haven't seen it in Genesis. And if Jude says that they went after strange flesh, after other flesh of a different kind, how can you say that the issue wasn't homosexual behavior?

I would be curious to know what these were - not for the purpose of debate or argument; just curiosity. If you are concerned about starting a firestorm, feel free to PM me.

Mrs. White wrote about this, and I have it bookmarked. Blessings, Green Cochoa.

Very good...

Dear Bravus, I have long appreciated your wisdom in your comments here. I admire this latest decision of yours, although I can't think of anything you've said in the past which would be offensive to anyone had it been signed by your true name. You are one of the best reasons to read Club Adventist. May your tribe increase!

I would say that your salvation is not dependent upon your chosen denomination; it is dependent upon your relationship with Jesus Christ. All denominations are man-made constructs of what some person or group decided what was "truth" in their own interpretation of scripture. Salvation has nothing to do with getting every single doctrinal point in scripture or the writings of EGW 100% correct. If you are unhappy with mainstrean Adventism, there are plenty of ministries out there that will cater to you - for example - Hope International, Steps to Life, the Reformed SDA Church, Amazing Facts, Messianic Judaism, Shepherd's Rod. You will likely be unhappy with them after a while when you realize their people and organizations are just as flawed as everyone else - just in different ways. Salvation comes from loving and believing in the Lord Jesus Christ and letting His Spirit change you from the inside; and studying the Scripture for guidance into what is right. It does not come from the Adventist (or any other) denomination. It only comes as a free gift (i.e., no strings attached; nothing we "earn") from Jesus Christ.

Two Wolves One evening an old Cherokee told his grandson about a battle that goes on inside people. He said, "My son, the battle is between two 'wolves' inside us all. One is Evil. It is anger, envy, jealousy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego. The other is Good. it is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, forgiveness, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith." The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather "Which wolf wins?" The old Cherokee simply replied, "The one you feed."

Here's an original thought for you all: The Sabbath is 24 hours long, right? The answer is both "yes" and "no"... Actually the 24-hour Sabbath is really 48 hours long! Why? Because the Earth rotates, and people live all over the Earth -- and the Sabbath is determined as to when the sun sets as the Earth revolves as it affects people all around the globe! During Creation Week our planet experienced the linear time of Day One being the 24 hours and it was followed by Day Two (24 hours), then Day Three (24 hours), etc. -- but after God put people on the planet things got more "complicated" as far as counting the days of the week and the weekly Sabbath. Back when Adam and Eve lived in just one place on the planet in the Garden, then the Sabbath would've been just 24 hours -- they experienced the setting of the sun and "evening," and then about 12 hours later the sun came up and it was "day" -- then the cycle repeated itself, so when the next 7th day Sabbath arrived, they kept each of those Sabbaths for just the appropriate 24-hour period. Now mankind lives all over the globe, sundown slowly travels around the globe and nightfall continually happens for people all around the world for a full revolution of the planet -- if you live in Israel or Europe the 7th day begins at a certain time, but for people in North and South America the 7th day begins many hours later -- and since the Sabbath must have a duration of 24 literal hours for every person around the world who is observing it no matter where they live on the globe, then the "Sabbath" is actually happening for a total of 48 hours every week! The Sabbath lasts for 24 hours for the people who live in Europe or China or India or Israel or Russia -- and the Sabbath lasts for 24 hours for the people who live in America or the Philipines or on Pitcairn Island or Australia -- and for this event to happen world-wide in all the Time Zones on all sides of our planet, it would take a total of 48 hours for the Sabbath to cover the entire rotation of the planet! So from God's viewpoint, the "Sabbath" lasts for 48 hours on this planet -- not just 24 hours -- the Sabbath-keeping people all over the planet are keeping a "holy day" that actually has a total duration of 48 hours long! Hmmmmm.... isn't "48 hours" actually TWO days?... It's interesting to think about this... Obviously God has arranged the Sabbath to be determined by individual groups of people depending on just where and on what continent they live on our rotating planet! Will the 7th day Sabbath ever go back to beginning just 24 hours? Yes, that will happen in the New Earth -- Isaiah told us that the redeemed will gather in the New Jerusalem every Sabbath to worship the Lord -- when everybody is gathered in one place on the planet the Sabbath will finally again be experienced as an "evening and morning" of just 24 hours. After all, it would be somewhat odd to have a 48-hour Sabbath in the New Earth throughout Eternity, God would be keeping a full two days of the week observing the Sabbath instead of just the 7th day... This 48-hour Sabbath thing has been on my mind for many years -- has any other Adventist ever brought up this subject before?