Leaderboard

Inspiration is a combination of the human and the divine. It has to be in order for us humans to understand it. EGW clearly understood this and so stated it. So, let us take my red dress example. To be brief, Ellen White sent a woman a piece of red cloth, as well as some other material. She told the woman that she looked good in red and she should have a dress made out of the red cloth. This incident is recorded in the records of EGWs life and ministry. 1) Should we teach that the statement of EGW to that woman was directly inspired by God? 2) Should we teach that God has told us through EGW, that all women look good in red and all women should wear a red dress at least sometimes? NOTE: I have personally come to know people who have believed and taught such. I am not making this up. For me, the resolution to this is in my understanding of inspiration, which you do not have to accept as truth. When God provides us with a prophet, God does so for a specific purpose. That purpose becomes the central message of that prophet. God helps that prophet in communicating that central message in a manner that preserves that message that allow God's truth to be communicated to other humans. But, the preservation of that central message may not be extended to every other aspect of the prophets personal belief. Daniel has a message from God in the O.T. That message has been preserved for us in our time. But, that does not mean that Daniel understood every aspect of that message in his time. It does not mean that he understood everything that we understand today. Living in the time of the N.T. and beyond to that of the Time of the End and of the Christian Church, we probably have God-given knowledge of our salvation that Daniel did not have. It also does not mean that Daniel, in speaking of the common affairs of his life was inspired by God in everything that he said. As I have experienced, we should not elevate EGW above that which we can expect from a Biblical prophet. In addition, we must individually decide as to what the reason and purpose was in giving this denomination the gift of EGW. As so me would believe, was it to explain a Bible t hat could not be otherwise understood? No. Not according to her. according to her, the Bible was to be the test of her authority. I believe that God gave this denomination the gift of EGW to be a guide in our administrative development. We would not be the denomination that we are today if it had not been for her. However, we would have reached our doctrinal understanding of the fundamentals, without her. God led us in fundamental doctrines..

Mrs. White once said "God does not send his light and his truth through impure channels." She also said: The truth and the glory of God are inseparable; it is impossible for us, with the Bible within our reach, to honor God by erroneous opinions. Many claim that it matters not what one believes, if his life is only right. But the life is molded by the faith. If light and truth is within our reach, and we neglect to improve the privilege of hearing and seeing it, we virtually reject it; we are choosing darkness rather than light. {GC 597.2} If erroneous opinions do not honor God, how could He call a supposedly error-filled book His Word and the Truth? "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." (Proverbs 30:5-6)

That "incident" is not written in any of Mrs. White's writings. I know, because I just spent a good hour looking at every single mention of the word "red," all 423 of them, on the 2010 published CD of her writings. So it appears to be a classic "red herring." The Bible speaks of "scripture" which means "writings" as being "inspired by God." She didn't write and publish this, so it deserves no further attention. She has given us her testimony with respect to her published writings--they are inspired by God.

I'm not so sure taking away guns solves the people problem. According to the wiki source shootings did still occur but arson was still prevalent. Do we just keep banning everything that can be used to kill? We cannot allow ourselves to try and insulate our lives to such a degree that all risk is removed by legislation. This just gives legislation too much control over our lives. We know it is legislation against believers that show the close of probation and I think we are going in that direction very quickly. It astonishes me believers want more legislative control. That is the wrong way to think it though. Good moral upright people do not need more legislation. Legislation is a result of amoral people but does legislation change their immorality. Amoral people won't follow legislation in the first place so the only freedoms we take away are from the moral people. What good are more laws if we can't hold any more people in prisons? Now we've created a hypocrisy if we make more laws and can't hold anybody in prison or jail. ...

Everyone is making this overly complicated! All this high-minded jabber jawing causes unbelief in the Scripture. Confusion to what is truth sets the stage for one claiming infallibility on faith and morals. My two cents

Consider this. Were the parables that Jesus told, true stories? Did he use those stories to convey what is the Truth? Consider the child telling her version of what she saw when she saw mommy kissing Santa Claus underneath the mistletoe. Was she conveying an accurate account of what had actually happened? Several layers of untrue and inaccuracy going on in that cute little Christmas song. But it indeed reveals a serious point of learning the truth about Santa Claus. What details are essential to the point of a story? What details are relevant? And what details are not? Is it really essential to the story that the act of God of "stopping the sun" to prolong the daylight for an important battle that the writer was wrong and should have said that God stopped the earth from spinning on its axis? It was still the act of God intervening to give the Israelites the victory. That was the point of the story. Not that the writer understood our solar system and how it actually works. Truthful is a synonym of honest. It does not mean "accurate" or "correct". One can honestly tell what they perceived and be quite incorrect. I glanced out the window and saw something fly by outside. To my eye it looked like a blue colored bird a bit larger than an American Robin. The only bird that is blue of that size around here is a Bluejay. I truthfully and honestly commented that I just saw a Bluejay fly by outside my window. What I did not see is two children playing catch in the yard with a rag doll in a blue dress outside my window. Nothing I said was accurate. But my witness account was truthful as to what I thought I saw. In court witnesses to the same event will almost always see and remember different details of what they saw or heard. And sometimes details may be in conflict without any witness being dishonest. Cross examination may reveal honest explanations. The person's memory was not precise because of the passage of time or their POV was such that they could not clearly see the whole scene and everything that happened. But cumulatively a thread of consistent details should emerge among the witnesses. In fact if 3 witnesses get on the stand and say exactly the same thing in the same words, it is suspicious that they got together to concoct the same story or were coached by someone that essentially gave them a "script" to recite.

the UK is banning all Latin abbreviations on its internet websites... (I guess the dumbing down of America has reached across the pond...)

Obviously missing the point... (Or is it an intentional misdirecting the point?) The point is that by setting the definition and meaning of inspiration as completely error proof, free of all inaccuracies, your POV on inspiration sets Scripture up to be easily disqualified as inspired by God. That impossible standard of inspiration removes the human element completely, as if all of Scripture was written entirely by the hand of God with no help at all from error prone, sin inflicted, humans. That is not how Scripture or EGW defines it. As I said before the test of the prophetic gift is Truth, not accuracy. You are confusing accuracy or inerrancy with Truth.

Rossw asked for the meaning of FTU: I have found on the Internet well over 40 meanings of FTU. I guess that CoAspen is the only person who can tell us what was meant.

Lots of opinions from right-wingers in those articles, and 'statistics' from right-wing think tanks, very few or no credible research reports from credible researchers. Of course there are many factors beyond guns! My claim is not that guns and gun laws are the sole factor: that would be a foolish claim, easily debunked. You seem to keep trying to debunk that claim, but it's not the claim I'm making. My claim is that, given humans and humanity and all our violent impulses, and all the other factors of ideology and media and poverty and mental illness, that, all other things being equal, the same human situation with fewer assault weapons and handguns in it will lead to fewer shootings than with many assault weapons and handguns. That claim is really very simple and obvious. If there were zero guns in a situation, there would be zero shootings. If there were infinite guns, there would not be infinite shootings. Between those two extremes, my claim is simply that fewer guns will in general mean fewer shootings. The Munich shootings where guns are harder to get does not debunk that: there will always be ways and always be some incidents. I'm talking about reducing the number, not creating a utopia on earth. The fact it's possible to kill someone with a knife or a rock also doesn't debunk that. In general, fewer guns in an environment will lead to fewer shootings. If that environment is a violent one, it might be fewer compared to a high baseline... but what's the appropriate comparison is between *that* environment with more and fewer guns, not between that environment and a completely different one. It's completely unsurprising that Chicago and Wyoming have different rates of violent crime, for reasons largely unrelated to the incidence of guns or gun control. It's a complex argument that needs a sophisticated approach to making reasonable comparisons of like with like... but as I said above, it's really a very simple concept: all other things being equal, fewer guns means fewer shootings.

What I find interesting about citizens of Wyoming is the amount of guns and what appears to be a willingness to use them if they or their families were threatened. Yet there is a lack of violence you find in area's of tight gun control. Most dont even lock their doors. I do know I would not want to be caught breaking into their home or business.

The Bible is an inspired book. Those who wrote it were inspired. 1) Were the Biblical writers always accurate? 2) When it says (Exodus 1:11) that the children of Israel built Rameses was that an accurate statement? You have a huge dating problem if you do say so. 3) When a Biblical writer mentions the 4-corners of the Earth, is that accurate? What about the sun moving around the Earth? Folks, the Bible is trustworthy, true and sufficient for our salvation. But, that does not mean that it is accurate in every detail. It is a book that is a mixture of the human and the divine. We should not expect more of Ellen White than we can expect of the Bible and its prophets.

lol... calm down.... it wasn't an order — it was a suggestion.

In "trending" news today on my home page: Mr. Potato Head: Hasbro creates a "wonky" version of the toy to draw awareness to food waste. Coca-Cola Pool: Video shows man swimming in 1,500 gallon pool filled with coke, mentos and ice. Moana: Animated Disney film creators criticized for making Polynesian god Maui obese.