Leaderboard

Rossw said below: Rossw, you are on the right track and heading in the right direction! I would add to what you said the following: 1) The primary mission and ministry of EGW and the reason that God gave her to us was to guide the developing SDA denomination in the direction that God wanted it to go. As part of this, she gave guidance, direction, advice and correction to the leaders in this developing denomination. We are adminestrtively and organizationaly what we are today as a denomination due to the ministry of EGW. It was she who gave us the triparte focus on a) health care, 'b) education and c) publishing which in modern times has developed into media miniatry. 2) While EGW did write on religious/doctrinal and theological themes her mission was neither to add to the Bible nor to replace the focus on the Bible with her writings. Rather it was to encourage people to focus their doctrinal foundation on the Bible and to make it the center of belief and practice.

Due their lack of man glands, women tend to be less prone to aggression and violence, making them, perhaps, superior leaders. If men were banned from the military and government positions, peace might sweep across the world. Women in the ministry can't do any worse than the men, and maybe better.

Another bit of evidence that Jesus did not declare "all foods clean": In 1 Peter 1:15-16 it says, "but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, since it is written, 'You shall be holy, for I am holy.' " Do you know where this is written in Scripture? It appears twice in the summary of Leviticus 11, a chapter that defines which animals are clean for food and which animals are not. "Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy. You shall not defile yourselves with any swarming thing that crawls on the ground. For I am the LORD who brought you up out of the land of Egypt to be your God. You shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.” (Leviticus 11:44-45) The other place it appears is Leviticus 19:1-3 "And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 'Speak to all the congregation of the people of Israel and say to them, You shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy. Every one of you shall revere his mother and his father, and you shall keep my Sabbaths: I am the LORD your God.' " It is clear that the author of 1 Peter believes Leviticus still contains authoritative guidelines for New Testament believers to "be holy in all your conduct".

You should read the Mark chapter from the verse first to understand what Christ was saying. He was rebuking the Pharisees ceremonial attitude. Thus, Jesus did not have to classify what kind of food he was talking about. Every one understood that Jesus was talking about qualified edible food according the Mosaic law.

Source is my own experience. I do not know where to place this post so it can be moved if necessary. In the light of conflict and misunderstanding between the public and Law Enforcement I am offering these suggestions to Clergy to avoid 'getting tickets'. I am involved in both Clergy and Law Enforcement. Law enforcement personnel are reluctant to 'write up tickets to several classes of people including Clergy, Doctors and Nurses BUT they have to know that you fit into one of these classes before they even get out of their squad cars to talk with you. May I offer the following suggests which I have found helpful? 1. Determine to obey any and all posted speed signs and other admonitions... Then DO IT! 2. On the back of your vehicle display a simple sign saying Clergy or Pastor. 3.Get your hands on a Shirt with a Clerical collar. Go to the Department of Motor Vehicles and have your picture with the clerical collar taken for your driver's license. This is called "Playing the game by 'their rules'.. Nuff Sed

Anyone grow up in a Jewish home??? Yes the man is considered the head of the family, but I tell you what the women is definitely the head of the house!!!!! Personally I don't believe anyone, husband or wife are rulers over anything. From what I gather from reading the Bible, is God is head over his church, and that means all the people in the church!! Which would include pastors, evangelists, deacons, deaconess, etc., etc. He allows some, like pastors, etc., to be in charge of his little flocks throughout the world. And as far as I can tell, it can be a women or a man. There are no definitives that I can see in the Bible or from EGW! My 2 cents!!

that put a mental picture in my mind of Cindy Brady (from The Brady Bunch) beating up the Fonz (from Happy Days)..... lol

Buzzards, I don't think you need to taunt the SDA's. If you have truth, just teach it respectfully.

I think the issue with Stan was not the subject, but rather the same subject matter was in many other threads. Maybe if you keep this particular subject to one thread then Stan wouldn't mind. Perhaps you should send him a private message to clarify.... My two cents

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjYoNL4g5Vg

As the discussion unfolded this apparently was a far from easily answered question. I am reviving this to see if anyone is willing to consider it and give us an answer.

I once saw a documentary on whether the Biblical stories of Moses and Joseph were true. The majority scholarship had a time period later in Egyptian chronology which essentially disputes the possibility of the Biblical narrative. When the time frame is pushed back to earlier the time frame fits including to the destruction of Jericho. Of course I am very much a lay person with just a hobbyist interest in history. The lesson though, for me is history must fit with the Biblical narrative instead of the opposite. I don't agree with everything you post, Kevin, but it is interesting to read your perspective on history. Wish I had more time to devote to such studies instead relying on documentaries.

Excellent thought whbae

That can be a slightly difficult question. I do believe in the Bible alone and in it is more than enough to have sufficient knowledge for salvation. I also believe EGW was a chosen instrument of God. However her writings should not be considered canon. I feel she only wrote in support of the canon instead of trying to add to it. In all honesty I would prefer to never use her in an argument or discussion but if she is a messenger of God then her writings do have some weight to it.

No women should be a head over men! It is very interesting. Those men who oppose women being a pastor or elder but let them allow women to be a principal of a school where many male teachers working under her. A woman can be are head of a department in a college such as English or Nursing where many males work, but she cannot be an elder or a pastor or a conference president. This is a dubious idea, not consistent standard.

Rossw said, below: Certainly I would have to agree that there is a fundamental truth to what Rossw has said; There is a level of basic knowledge of salvation that must be available in clarity that exists within the English form. But, there are issues that must be considered. I will list some, but I do not intend to indicate a numerical order of importance and I certainly should not be considered to be complete. 1) Ultimately those who advocate one translation of another, such as KJV over the NIV, generally base their arguments, at least in part, on what they would call extra-Biblical knowledge about the MSS and the Biblical languages. Perhaps some, such as Green, would deny that they do in fact do this:? But, probably most do it. 2) The Bible is not equally clear in regard to everything that it says. It does not need to be equally clear on everything. As I understand salvation there are some things that I understand the Bible to say that have more relationship to salvation that other issues have. E.G. To illustrate, and at the risk of generating discussion from those who will disagree with me; I Find Job 1: 6 & 7 to be an interesting passage. As I understand it, that passage gives some insight that is taught no where else in the Bible. I find it to be of value. But, I do not find it to be essential to my salvation. IOW, it just may be that others will have as much of a basis for their understanding as I have for mine. While that passage may be of value, in may not be important that we agree on it. 3) The Biblical book of Numbers contains many places where the specific groups of the people of Israel were numbered in the thousands. However, that is only a translation which some might say is subject to bias on the part of the translator. The Biblical word that has been translated ehrs as thousand has other meaning than what is said in sthe English word "thousand." A correct translaton of those passages may involve something other than a specific number. An extra-Biblical knowledge of that Hebrew word may be of value to us in understanding th'ese passages in the book of Nubers. 4) Exodus 1:11 contains an interesting verse in that it tells us that the Children of Israel built Ramses. Biblical critics allege that this is a very real factual error that could not have happened. Extra Biblical knowledge from archaeology provides an answer to this question. However, does my salvation depend on whether or not I believe that they built this city? I do not think so. 5) The phrase "three days and three night" is a subject for discussion. In those discussions it is helpful, I will suggest to understand what it would have meant in the culture of the t ime of Christ, which might differ from what it would mean in our culture today. 6) As EGW is often cited in this discussion, I will point out that she tells us that God has left some things unclear in the Bible in order to force us to study the Bible in depth. NOTE: Well, I am certain I have provided enough examples for people to have grounds to argue with me. So, this will benough.

As I was reading the responses, and prior to reading the one by Kevin above, I was thinking: ") A knowledge of Biblical geography may be helpful at times to understand the Biblical record. Yet, if Green is as I understand him, he would consider Books on Biblical Geography to be extra-Biblical and therefore not worthy of any kind of major consideration.

That being said, the original covenant between God and Abraham (and selected offspring - Isaac and not Ishmael, Jacob and not Esau) was unconditional. God basically swore on His own life that the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob would receive the land. We as Gentile believers my be grafted in; but we are still dependent upon the root (Christ and Israel. Christians have not replaced the Jews as God's Chosen People. God has simply given us the privilege of joining them. “Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. " (John 4:21-23)

John Hagee is another popular TV preacher who says the Ten Commandments are binding on Christians yet also somehow gets around the seventh-day Sabbath. There are many ways to show from the Bible that Stanley's and Hagee's arguments are not biblical. God always refers to the weekly Sabbath as "my holy day," never as "your holy day," or "your sabbath." He didn't call any other day "my holy day," "the holy day of the Lord." See Isaiah 58. God only blessed the seventh day. There is no blessing of God in any other day of the week. It is also only day of the week that God rested on. In Exodus 16, God performed the miracle of the manna to prove that it matters to Him which day is kept as the Sabbath. This was before the law was given on Mt. Horeb. Stanley claims that the Christian church immediately changed the day in honor of Christ's resurrection, but there is no biblical record of such a change. In fact, the church historians, Sozoman and Socrates, testify that Christians were keeping the 7th day Sabbath until the 5th century. The first mention of the first day being kept as a celebration of Christ's resurrection was about 200 AD. He also claims that Paul and the apostles in the NT didn't keep the Sabbath, yet there is nowhere in the NT where the apostle are found breaking the Sabbath day. They are always seen keeping the Sabbath throughout the book of Acts. If they were going to keep the first day of the week, Acts 13: 41-44 would have been a great opportunity for them to do it. But instead we see Paul waiting a whole week before he preached the word of God to the people. On the Sabbath, the Scripture says, almost the whole Gentile town of Antioch came together to hear the gospel preached. There can be no doubt that if Paul had been breaking the Sabbath and teaching people to keep another day, the Jews who were seeking a way to condemn Paul would have brought the charge of Sabbath-breaking against him. But they never did. Why not? Because there was no evidence of it. In fact, throughout the NT, Paul taught people that they should keep the commandments of God. See 1 Cor. 7: 19; cf. 9: 21. There's also the fact that if Sunday was going to be a part of the New Covenant, it would have had to be added to the New Covenant BEFORE it was ratified, not AFTERWARDS. Yet we know of no evidence at all that the Sunday was a part of the New Covenant before Christ's death. Adding Sunday to the New Covenant even one day after Christ's death would have been one day too late. That is why Christ insituted the Lord's Supper before he died. If Christ had added it after he rose from the dead, it would have been too late to become a part of the New Covenant. See Gal. 3: 15; Heb 9: 17. Isaiah 66 shows that all flesh will keep the Sabbath in the new earth. Therefore it is clear that, as Jesus said, God made the Sabbath for all mankind, not merely for the Jews.