Leaderboard

Maybe "these SDAs" just don't choose to engage with snark.

If that is your standard, then we similarly must eliminate Biblical writers that lacked accuracy in what they wrote. The examples I noted previously are just a few. Accuracy is not the test of the prophetic gift. Truth is the test. And accuracy and truth are not the same thing. Nor is accuracy the test of truthfulness and honesty. Witnesses to the very same event will not see and/or remember the same things. They will honestly and truthfully tell different versions of the same story, that may or may not always seem terribly consistent. The Truth may be somewhere in their accounts or a combination of their accounts or quite apart from what they truthfully recalled and thought they saw. Again, what you are suggesting is not how inspiration works. Essentially, what you are saying is that EGW was channeling God in all that she said and wrote; that whenever she opened her mouth it was God speaking and whenever she held a pen in her hand and put it to paper, it moved with no control by her what got written down, either because God took control of her hand and mind, or that he literally dictated every word that she wrote down. I think it would be good for you to visit the EGW Estate at the General Conference or one of the EGW study centers and examine some of her original manuscripts. It is abundantly clear that what got published went through much the same drafting, editing, and rewriting process as that of pretty much any other writer. If the inspiration that she was under, was essentially an accurate verbatim transcription of what God told her to write, why all the changes that were made in the process, not just by her, but also by her assistants? She signed off on the final (which somethimes also got further changes in subsequent editions or republications.) Here is how I personal evaluate things she has written. If she writes, "God said to me" or as is quite common, "the angel said to me" and she puts it in quotes, than I take that as something that we really should consider as precisely dictated to her. We should understand her as accurately conveying that message. When she prefaced something specifically as "I was shown", we can assume God showed her something in vision or that he pointed her to a specific source of information or even someone who could give her that information. She would convey it in her own words within her perception and understanding of what she heard, saw, or read. That may well have not always been a complete or totally accurate account of it. But it still conveyed the point of truth needful for the message she felt inspired to give. And then there is a lot of practical advice given for a particular time, person, or situation. That may or may not be still of value, although we might be able to derive some lesson, as we might from some stories in the Bible.

The founders of our Church very early on recognized this fact, and confronted the issue of Scriptural silence to answer a question and in fact formulated a rule to guide them in making decisions on questions that came up where there wasn't clear Scriptural authority, or a clear "Thus saith the Lord". I will have look for the quote, but for now I will paraphrase it. Essentially they determined that in the absence of a clear directive, we have freedom to use the brains God gave us and to decide and do what makes sense. It was a matter of pragmatically moving forward. In that context, such questions are not matters of moral choice, but practical decisions based on the best evidence at the time but that are not carved in stone.

We have had some discussion of the place that extra-Biblical sources have in our knowledge base. Some seem to say that there is no reason to look outside the Bible, at least on subjects that are part of the Biblical record. Some have seemed to have very little interest in any extra-Biblical writings that give us information as to geography, culture and more during the Biblical times. Well this morning (July 23, Saturday) I noted an interesting article by Istvan Szapudi, in the August, 2016 issue of SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN. It discussed the possibility that supervoids exist in space. Such have been thought to exist since 2004. Buit, they have been thought to be no more than about 20 times the width of our full moon in size. But, Szapudi, and others, believe that there may be a supervoid that is 1.8 billion light years across! This interested me. This issues arises out of our knowledge base of cosmology. The Bible is clearly interested in cosmology and has something to say on this subject. So, I thought that it might be of interest to see what the Bible had to say about supervoids. I took a look at both Young's and Strong's listing of the Biblical words. Neither credited the Bible with ever using the word "supervoid." What? The Bible seems not to have anything to say on this aspect of cosmology. Get real folks: The Bible does not have a direct comment to make on every aspect of our being.

EGW isn't put in a tight spot. She was very clear that we should not take her word for it, but to study Scritpure ourselves. She never claimed her words as on a par with Scripture. That was the clear meaning of referring to what she wrote as a lesser light. Your post also seems to reflect a view of inspiration that is out of harmony with what she says about it and what Scripture shows. The writer was inspired. The words were not dictated by God. For some the thoughts were inspired and put in their own words. In other instances EGW as the writer was inspired to seek the answer through study and prayer, and study would include the use of available resources and the assistance of others. It is clear that many of her writings reflect the resources found in her library, all of which were the current scholarship and understanding of her time. Yes, there were specific things that were revelaled to her in vision. But not everything. She certainly did not claim infallibility and we certainly should not impose it on her writings. And she was not a Greek or Hebrew scholar. So when it comes to achieving a better understanding of the meaning of the language that Scripture was originally written in, we are being more faithful to Scripture than if we insist on sticking to the imperfect knowledge of translators that resulted in flawed translations, such as the example Kevin has given of the inn in Luke. It wasn't that EGW's inspiration was false. It simply was not specific on that particular detail. Just as the Bible writers who wrote of the sun standing still, or that reflected an ancient understanding of an earth that was flat. The writers were inspired to write, but did so with the understanding of their time.

the Word of God also contains quotes from extrabiblical sources in order that the readers could better understand, from the context of their times and culture... for example, Paul, in Acts, stated, "And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, 'Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks'" (Acts 26:14) The phrase “kick against the pricks” “comes from Aeschylus (525-456 B.C.) in his work, Agamemnon. (line 1624) "Pricks" were the jabs that farmers would give to their oxen if the beasts began to be obstinate and refuse to obey. Taken at face value in this day and age, the word could have a very different meaning — or the phrase might have no meaning at all to the contemporary reader. Context and culture are important in reading the Bible. And if one is really interested in understanding the deeper layers of the scriptures (and there *are* deeper layers), the only way is to do extrabiblical study. IMHO.

Ahhhhhh, But the Wise Man Saith The proverbs of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel; To know wisdom and instruction; to perceive the words of understanding; To receive the instruction of wisdom, justice, and judgment, and equity; To give subtilty to the simple, to the young man knowledge and discretion. A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels: The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction. My son, hear the instruction of thy father, and forsake not the law of thy mother: For they shall be an ornament of grace unto thy head, and chains about thy neck. Only those that have a firm foundation in Scripture will have the discretion to discern secular things as well

How quickly we forget as we grew older. "There is a reaction to an action". When we were training our kids we used to say "don't do it!". Did it ever work?! It is a basic human nature to react to act. When we tell the child not to do it he will do more. This nature is carried on to our adulthood. When the grown ups are told not to do it they will want to do more. When the government tells you not to buy a gun people will go opposite way invoking the 2nd amendment. It never work when you try to enforce a negative behavior. Education is the best solution.

FWIW I gave permission for this to be posted on here.

OK; you need to do a little research on both those statements did you know there were two (2) types of dresses labeled "The Reformed Dress" for women -- Google it reformed dress of the 1800's one Ellen spake against, the other she said they should adopt something similar Bicycles - one she spake against, the other she was all for -- Google it

Australia’s gun ban experiment success: Fact or fiction? 6/16/14| by Chris Eger An Australian police official inspecting a pile of about 4,500 prohibited firearms that had been handed under the Australian government’s buyback in Sydney in 1997. (Photo credit: David Gray/Reuters) President Obama has repeatedly hailed Australia’s 1996 gun ban as a model for gun control. However, critics from the land down under are opening up. During a recent Q and A session with Tumblr founder and CEO David Karp, the President referenced the country’s harsh gun ban, saying “A couple of decades ago, Australia had a mass shooting … and Australia just said, well, that’s it, we’re not seeing that again. And basically imposed very severe, tough gun laws.” This echoed a similar remark made in September 2013 following the Washington Naval Yard mass killing by the President. “In the United Kingdom, in Australia, when just a single mass shooting occurred in those countries, they understood that there was nothing ordinary about this kind of carnage,” Obama said nine months ago. “They endured great heartbreak, but they also mobilized and they changed, and mass shootings became a great rarity.” With these comments voiced not once but twice by the leader of the United States, some Australians were puzzled by the reference. “The ‘success’ of the 1996 Australian gun reform is a myth,” penned Australian Nick Adams, a conservative writer and motivational speaker, in an open letter posted on Joe for America. “The only thing achieved was to take away the guns of the law-abiding, leaving only the criminals armed. Is this what you wish for America?” In 1996, Australia adopted the National Firearms Agreement following a mass killing known as the Port Arthur massacre, where a gunman killed 35 people and injured 24. The measure led to severe restrictions on firearms including an outright ban on most semi-automatic and pump-action rifles and shotguns. During the enactment of the law, the government bought back nearly 700,000 guns, but whether or not it had a positive affect is still up for debate. Statistics show that violent crime remained steady, the murder rate dropped slightly and gun deaths had reduced, but the flow of illegal guns has risen along with assaults and murders by stabbing. While technically there hasn’t been a mass shooting since the measure passed, there are accounts where a gunman opened fire in a public place. In 2002 at Monash University in Melbourne, a mental impaired gunman shot seven people, killing two of them. Afterward, the government expanded controls over semi-automatic handguns, buying back some 50,000 handguns then deemed illegal. During this period, the Australian military divested itself of large stockpiles of surplus small arms, with lawmakers taking great steps to prevent the guns from passing into the hands of local collectors. This included the export of more than 100,000 Lithgow-made Short Magazine Lee Enfield rifles to the U.S. and the destruction of 110,000 Australian L1A1 (semi-auto only FN FAL) rifles in 1994. Adams, who currently lives in the U.S., said he believes that gun laws achieve very little. “Mass shootings are about illness, not guns. Any other so-called ‘gun issue’, if there are any, is related to the breakdown of the family, cultural decline, and the age of entitlement.” The effect on crime and punishment in the south Pacific country is also a matter of debate. The Sporting Shooters’ Association of Australia, the largest gun rights group in the country, has long held that the 1996 gun laws and those passed since then have had a negligible effect on safety and firearms death. Although some studies maintain that there was a decline in gun deaths, particularly suicides, in the country following the 1996 legislation, a 2008 report by the University of Melbourne that analyzed firearms deaths for a period of 100-years in Australia concluded that the new laws did not have any significant effects on firearm homicides and suicides. Others contend that any decrease in gun deaths is societal related and not due to strict gun control. “The full truth is that Australia’s close neighbor New Zealand – a country very similar to Australia in history, culture, and economic trends – has experienced an almost identical time period with no mass shooting events despite the ongoing widespread availability of the types of firearms Australia banned,” David Leyonhjelm, a Liberal Democratic Party member of the Australian parliament, wrote in a piece for the Australian Finance Review. In an email to Guns.com, Leyonhjelm said, “The gun laws have made no difference to the level of homicides, up or down. Their impact on suicides is less clear, but there has probably been no impact apart from method substitution.” The lawmaker was clear that the gun ban in his country was not a magic wand for ending mass killings. “There have been no mass shootings since the gun laws were introduced, but New Zealand has had none either and it didn’t follow us,” Leyonhjelm said. “On the other hand, we have had several mass murders using other methods (principally fire).” In closing, Leyonhjelm contends that the Australian model is a flawed one. “The bottom line is we are suffering under draconian gun laws that treat us like criminals in waiting, with zero public benefit but substantial public cost,” he said, adding. “If President Obama genuinely believes Australia offers a model for reducing firearm crime or suicides, he is seriously misinformed.”

The poster that claim/believes that EGW was Equal to the Biblical writers goes out of their way to disparage, ie, 10 Reasons......, all women, 1/2 of Gods human creation. I wonder if God is happy with that? Although a smiley face was posted at the end, perhaps to suggest it was all in fun, reading the post carefully would suggest that smiley is misleading. What we need is a list of 'thus saith the Lord' that tell us which is viable and which are not. Because we don't need context and the words being self explanatory. I have already been told that one of them ' if thy hand offend thee, cut it off' can be explained away. It all gets rather confusing...we need a list!

Home About Research Financial Crisis Health Care Taxes Retirement Energy Youth Programs Blogs AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN April 13, 2009 It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner. Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime: In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent. Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent. Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent. Moreover, Australia and the United States -- where no gun-ban exists -- both experienced similar decreases in murder rates: Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent. During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent. Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent. Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent. At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent. Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women. While this doesn't prove that more guns would impact crime rates, it does prove that gun control is a flawed policy. Furthermore, this highlights the most important point: gun banners promote failed policy regardless of the consequences to the people who must live with them, says the Examiner. Source: Howard Nemerov, "Australia experiencing more violent crime despite gun ban," Free Republic, April 9, 2009. For text: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2225517/posts - See more at: http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847#sthash.JaLJYADt.dpuf

____ Seeing This German Shepherd’s Surprise When His Soldier Dad Comes Home Will Melt Your Heart (VIDEO) The phrase “absence makes the heart grow fonder,” is incredibly true in the case of dogs and their guardians. While we hate the thought of leaving our four-legged best friends behind for any reason, sometimes we have no choice but to entrust a family member or friend with their care and say goodbye. No matter how long we’re gone – days, weeks or months – we know that they will be waiting for us with a happy wagging tail when we finally return. Just look at the German Shepherd in this video! His dad has been away on tour in the Army for a very long time and he has patiently waited for him to return ever since they said goodbye. Like any good pet parent, this soldier dad wanted to do something special for his beloved pup and decided to surprise him. The German Shepherd just thinks he’s going to play fetch, but when he comes to bring the ball back to his caretaker, he spots his dad and is immediately overjoyed! Saying goodbye is always hard, but getting the chance to say hello again makes it all worth it! God is Love!~ Jesus saves!

A dog may be man's best friend but this one ill make you cry. God is Love!~Jesus saves!

Well that puts EGW in a tight spot. She was either Divinely inspired or she wasn't. Her credibility becomes a problem if we aren't sure what is inspired and what isn't thus proving true her many skeptics. We can't have our cake and eat it too with the belief her messages are less inspired by God.

OK, OTOH one of Gods' special called out men was asked by God, "What doest thou here?" That didn't make him any less chosen of God as one of His spokespersons. God is Love!~Jesus saves!

was the above a Freudian slip, listing EGW before the Bible?

Some do not want the truth. What Kevin pointed out does not change anything about the birth of Christ, perhaps just the exact location. When we start to base our faith on mere words rather than the message of those words we become prisoners of them. The Bible is about God and His relationship to humans, that is who we worship not the Bible. I would suggest that by clinging to 'words' without understanding the context and message we truly lose sight of God. The 'words' have become replacement for the message.

I read books other than the Bible. I don't choose my doctrinal beliefs based on books other than the Bible and Ellen White. But God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines, and the basis of all reforms. The opinions of learned men, the deductions of science, the creeds or decisions of ecclesiastical councils, as numerous and discordant as are the churches which they represent, the voice of the majority,— not one or all of these should be regarded as evidence for or against any point of religious faith. Before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain “Thus saith the Lord” in its support. {GC88 595.1} Many posting here uplift the opinions of learned men. Mrs. White tells us not to do so. I regard her writings as messages from God, and therefore, as God's special instructions to me. It follows, then, that to obey God, it is my duty to demand a plain "Thus saith the Lord." Anyone trying to dissuade me from this is speaking for God's Enemy. Women's ordination has no support via a plain "Thus saith the Lord."

Green said, below: I do not know of anyone who would accuse you of insanity. I find it interesting the Ellen White had many extra-Biblical books in her library. It is clear that she read them and sometimes quoted from them in her written works. Of course, Green would probably tell us that as an inspired prophet God led her in the selection of the books that she read. Regardless, it establishes the idea that it is O.K. to read books other than the Bible.