Leaderboard

I never thought of it like that thanks. Until I started reading the Bible I never realized 90% of bible stories I was told as a kid are in genesis

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." (Matt. 28:19-20) Some people may have other priorities. This is mine.

The right of conscience is inviolable indeed. This does not preclude the possibility of educating each other, if we have any insights into God's wishes or requirements.

No; but it's not the SDA church's money either. It's God's money. And I feel it is my responsibility to give it wherever I think it is needed the most. That is not always the pockets of SDA employees. You can follow your own conscience. Please allow me the right to follow mine.

I can name the stories of genesis in order ( I’m almost done with the first book) ahem adam and eve noahs ark sarai and abram issac and rebbeckah jacob and esu joesph and his coat of many colors

I have decided that I will post here, some of the comments that Springett makes as to how Leviticus 18:22 has been understood. I will make my comments brief, and in my own words. They will sum my understanding as to what Springett has said. It should be noted that will not be stating whether or not Springett agrees with his statement as to how the passage has been understood. In addition, in actual fact, Springett may believe that there is more than one valid understanding of the passage. Here is how he presents the passage as being understood, as I understand him: * Israel needed to increase its population and therefore discouraged homosexuality. * In that time, homosexuality was associated with idolatry. * Homosexuality is a reversal of the natural order of sexuality. * Homosexuality is associated with male prostitutes. * Context includes homosexuality with bestiality, child sacrifice, incest and adultery. * Homosexuality in not condemned outside of idolatry. * Homosexuality was not considered tot be intrinsically wrong, but was considered to be ritually wrong. * Homosexuality was considered to be a violation of Jewish culture. * The LXX translation gives additional light on homosexuality in the Bible that is not reflected in the KJV. * Certain Hebrews words that may refer to sexual intercourse, also have an ethical meaning that goes beyond the mere sexual sense. * Children were given to the god Molech both as child prostitutes to e sacrificed by being burned by fire. * Christ did not speak against homosexuality as it was not a subject of contention in the time of Christ. * The KJV use of the English word "Sodomite" may not be a correct translation. * The KJV word "dog" as applied to a human, has other applications than to a homosexual. * The book of Jubilees attributes the destruction of Sodom to general wickedness, fornication, and uncleanness. NOTE: I have generalized the above comments to go a bit beyond Lev. 18:22. But, I have not cited all that Springett says on other passages.

In comment and response to the suggestion that a Hebrew scholar might be helpful in looking at Leviticus 18:22: * I am not a Hebrew scholar. My knowledge of Biblical Hebrew is dependent upon reading others. * The English word "abomination" in Lev. 18:22 is a Hebrew word that has been transliterated as "toebah." * According to Young, toebah has been translated in the English KJV as "abomination" some 111 times and on three (3) occasions has been so translated by some other form of the word "abomination." * Strong expands upon this to tell us that toebah is related to that which is "disgusting" and often related to idol worship. * However, in my opinion, Strong and Young may be best used to tell us how a word has been translated into the English KJV. But, they are not best used to tell us the meaning of that word. This is likely due in part to the fact that in the common language of that day, the word is likely to have had meanings additional to those understood to be in the Bible. That could be due in part to a simple failure to recognize that an additional meaning of the word, common to that culture, could provide insight as to the Biblical meaning. * Under my understanding, a lexicon is best used to understand the meaning of a Biblical work in the original language. A lexicon, gives us additional meanings of a word in the culture, that may (?) (or may not) be part of the Biblical meaning. * Springett discusses Leviticus 18:22 in comments on six (6) different pages of his book. These comments tell us how that Hebrew word has been understood. They clearly lay out the thesis that there is more than one way in which this Hebrew word has been understood. * From this perspective, the ideas that Bravus may propose are clearly worthy of consideration, regardless of whether or not they are accepted. * On a personal note, I consider that the context of the Biblical passage must be considered and a verse should not be considered in isolation. Springett addresses this in some of his comments.

When God turned back the sun in Israel, it was observed in Babylon. But is it possible that some global events will be viewed on a regional scale? A star falling from heaven for example? Such an event might be seen in the night skiy on part of the earth while it is day over other countries that would not necessarily be able to see it?

A second context is again with the location of Canaan/Israel. It is the major intersection for the trade routes where again the routes between Europe, Asia, and Africa all meet. It was quite literally the center of the ancient world. The Canaanites made quite a fortune in the tolls of the trade caravans passing through. However a time came when this was not enough for the Canaanites. Somehow they came to believe that if they rapped someone, especially a man, that they were stealing some of their victim's life force. This meant that the Canaanite believed that in raping a merchant that is passing through that they not only get money to pay the tolls but that some of what will grow in that merchant's garden back at home will now grow in the Canaanite rapist's garden. That some of the animals that would have been born to the merchant's family's flocks back home will now be born to the Canaanite rapist's flocks. That some of the children that would have been born to the merchant's wife will now be born to the Canaanite rapist's wife. This is the issue with Sodom and Gomorrah. This threatened the word's economy. This major intersection of the great trade routes, the center of the world, was also the most dangerous place on earth. God putting the Hebrews here was to change this dangerous place into a very safe place, and to where the merchants could tell about the people and the religion and the God of the people who lived here.

It's why I posted the entire chapter, early in the thread. I'm keen to include context and trying to do so. I've talked about how the chapter introduces the topic, and noted that that forms an important part of the context. Are you saying that the relevant context is the rest of the list? If so, we can definitely get into that. There are a number of items in the list, all of them about sex. Some are about actual incest (in which there is a risk of genetic issues, as well as a social taboo), some are about 'social incest' (sleeping with people who have slept with people with whom you have a blood relationship). I think the only one that is not in some way family-related is the one about same-sex (male) contact, yes? An interesting piece is that the reason given not to do things is many times, in my view, in terms of 'ownership': don't sleep with your father's wife (who is not your mother) because she is his, don't sleep with your brother's wife because she is his, and so on. The homosexuality one is different, in that the reason given is 'because it is abominable/an abomination'. So indeed we need to know what this word means in this context. I have to disagree that simply using the English connotations of the English word constitutes good exegesis, though.

I don't remember where it was, and for a while I was looking for your reply but it never came. Anyway in a nutshell, the popular last generation movement is a mixture of some of what Mrs. White says (with a rejection of other things she said) and mixing that with something that John Wesley said. While John Wesley said a lot of good things and is light-years beyond Luther, not everything he said was perfect and this was probably one of the worst things he said. He speculated that there was a higher form of Sanctification than anything that he had written about or experienced, and he never knew of anyone who experienced it but he theorized that he was out there. There has been two groups that I'm aware of who has grabbed Wesley's speculation and ran with it. One group is the Pentecostals who say that the speaking in tongues is that level of Sanctification that Wesley theorized existed. Another group are Seventh-day Adventists who are looking for the last generation of reaching that level, that it is a level that never existed before and that the last generation was to have a different QUALITY of perfection than anyone else in human history. And they tend to have a long list of dos and don'ts that this last generation will have and they struggle to climb this dos and don't list and they have a very cookie cutter list of perfection. From our pre-trinitarian days there was a seeing Jesus as having the sinful nature and gaining at least close if not the only one before the last generation to have reached that level of perfection. And they being westerners read into the word "Perfection" the view of perfection from the pagan Greek philosophers. Something very ridged. As I said they take part of what Mrs. White says and ignore other things she says about it. Mrs. White differs in that she DOES NOT SEE THE LAST GENERATION AS HAVING A DIFFERENT QUALITY than ever before. She sees the perfection in the last generation as a different QUANTITY then ever before. Mrs. White sees people from all ages as at different levels in their spiritual growth that runs the bell curve from those who have come to completely and totally trust in God that there is no way that their faith can be shaken and runs the gamete to the unpardonable sin where there is so complete rejection of God that nothing can shake their unbelief and rebellion with most of us someplace in between. Some of our leaders have pointed out that her description of perfection sounds a lot like descriptions of John Wesley. Rather than seeing a level of perfection way above people like Wesley, she saw perfection in people like Wesley. She saw people in every generation who has reached perfection, and she did not see it as cookie cutter of reaching all our dos and don'ts, but just a total trust in Jesus that can withstand anything, and that we may not recognize them as having reached perfection because they are from different backgrounds and cultures and might not be doing everything we think a believer should be doing, but their works are perfect for their state of growth and experience, but they totally trust in God just as Wesley faced many hardships, stoneings being beaten up personal hardships but would continue to move on sharing his love for Jesus. Despite that fact that this had not been discovered in her day,, Mrs. White rejects the ridged Greek view of perfection and goes for the eastern and especially Hebrew view of Perfection (see Boman's monumental work on the differences between Greek and Hebrew thought) where something is perfect for where it currently is in it's state of growth. Mrs. White sees that with the increased work of the Holy Spirit and increased work of the demonic that the events of the last days will either make the members of the last generation kind and selfless willing to help others who are suffering to suffer less even if it means we must suffer more, or else so selfish and controlling that they only live for themselves. That there are only those who completely trust in Jesus or those who commit the unpardonable sin, but while in history there were only a few people at the two extremes and most of us in the middle, at the last generation there are larger numbers in the extremes and no one in between. B/W, do you see the difference between the two views?

Good for you! It's a great start. Now, ask the Holy Spirit to guide you through the stories of each of these people; and how they relate to the story of Jesus. For example, how Abraham represented God the Father and Isaac represented Jesus. Abraham took his son on a distant journey, like the Father sent Jesus. Isaac carried the wood for the sacrifice, just as Jesus carried the cross of wood for His sacrifice. Isaac willingly would have given his life as a sacrifice to God, just as Jesus willingly gave up His life to be a sacrifice to God for us. Just as Isaac lived, Jesus lives. Just as Isaac became the spiritual Father of physical Israel, Jesus became the Father of spiritual Israel.

Maybe the church needs a Sabbath School program especially designed for heterosexual misfits! ?

I do know that he recanted his views around 1970, but I believe this was his original position, the one that got him a following: The Sanctuary Awakening Fellowship. If they could be perfect enough, they might get their final atonement at any time. My father was in the ministry, countering this thing, so I remember a few of the particulars although I was very young. Does the church need a sanctuary awakening? Probably. Is this it? Absolutely not. We are never going to get ourselves anywhere by making Jesus out to have been sinful in His human nature.

interesting, indeed. Additionally, I've always thought the prophetic events involving nature should be visible around the world....but has that really happened?