Leaderboard

Just because SDA evangelists have been preaching it for over 150 years doesn't make it true. The sea beast isn't "obviously" the papacy; although I will concede it might be). Concerning the "deadly wound" which was healed, another alternative could the Ottoman Empire (aka the Islamic Caliphate) which was officially dissolved in the 1920's; and seems to be roaring back in the same areas it ruled for over 1,000 years; and seems to be spreading all over the world faster than any other religion. Muslims will outnumber Christians by 2050 by birth rate alone; earlier with conversions. It's deadly wound is healed as well. IMHO, it is time for Christians to quit criticizing and attacking each other and unite under our common beliefs in Christ an Creator, the Son of God, and Savior. If we continue to fight each other instead of on the increasing hostile acts against Christian in general that are rapidly developing all over the world (including in North America and Western Europe), we will be overwhelmed in the end times. In fact, scripture says the church will be overwhelmed: “In the latter part of their reign, when rebels have become completely wicked, a fierce-looking king, a master of intrigue, will arise. He will become very strong, but not by his own power. He will cause astounding devastation and will succeed in whatever he does. He will destroy those who are mighty, the holy people. (Dan. 8:23-25) "The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise its authority for forty-two months. 6 It opened its mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander his name and his dwelling place and those who live in heaven. It was given power to wage war against God’s holy people and to conquer them." (Rev .13:6-7) SDA's will not be the only ones saved in the end times; and the Sabbath will not be the major end-time issue.

I would agree. I would also suggest that the persecutor of the saints might again change identity before earth's history closes.

I found I had an easier time having Sabbaths off when I did not work for SDA institutions. Can you imagine asking your superviser at Loma Linda for the Sabbath off? When I worked at one non-Adventist hospital where we had self-scheduling, I maybe had to work one Sabbath a year! Another one once amonth. Actually, the Bible does not actually prohibit polygamy. You just cannot be a leader of the church with more than one wife. This becomes an issue if you are doing missionary work in a country where polygamy exists. Would you really ask the man to cut loose some of his wives who have made their lives with him and his family? Maybe you could make a case for no more wives.

Thanks for clarifying. The idea, well supported by the Scriptures, that the Sabbath will be mankind's final test, is predicated on the prospect of the issue someday becoming so clear to every single individual that there will not be the slightest valid excuse for getting it wrong. At that time, a choice regarding the Sabbath would be a choice of loyalties, an act of worship -- a final choice. And only God will know when this is the case. Never in this life have we been called upon to judge anyone. Trying to superimpose such a scenario onto today's conditions simply doesn't work. So the SDA position seems narrow to you because you do not yet understand it. Our pioneers, such as Joseph Bates, James White, and Ellen White were all about bringing people to a deeper experience with God. They were extremely broad in their outlook. Any narrow, selfish version of their teachings, that we may find among SDAs today, is nothing more or less than a caricature of the real thing. Some accidentally falsify the true thrust and meaning of the message by their lives and attitudes, and there are probably some who hate the truth, and will gladly misrepresent it on purpose to deceive. I pray that I may not fall into either of these two categories. So I absolutely agree with you that it will be all about whom or what you worship. It remains to be seen how the prophetic details will end up playing into this. We haven't the slightest ground for saying that those who do not yet "get" the Sabbath are condemned. This is not yet the end times, as far as the final crisis is concerned, but things can change very rapidly. Again, I believe the best preparation is a real experience in justification by faith.

I apologize if I am coming across dogmatically; I don't mean to. I am passionate about keeping our eyes open to the bigger picture. The SDA perception of the end of time is NOT the only plausible, Biblically sound scenario. If we loyally stick with a 150 year-old interpretation of prophecy that does not match with the signs of the times, we are stuck with believing that either the traditional interpretation is wrong or this is not the end times. For example, I am personally committed to observing the 4th Commandment; and I pray that others sincere Christians would observe it as well. However, if we are indeed saved by grace and not the Law, and they don't see it, then who am I to say that those who don't (or didn't) keep it are condemned? IMHO, if they truly love Jesus and trust who He says He is, they will be in His Kingdom and readily accept any rules He places on being there. I base that on me not being a trinitarian; but if when I get to the Kingdom, Jesus tells me the Trinity is for real, I will have absolutely no problem repenting of my mistake; because I truly love and trust my Lord; and will accept without hesitation any doctrinal misconceptions that I may have. Salvation in the end times will not be limited to what one believes about the Sabbath. One can be a great Sabbath keeper and a poor Christian otherwise. Salvation in the end times won't be about the Sabbath or what you believe as much as who you worship - the gods of this world, or the God of Heaven and His Son - with no compromise and no backing down.

Um... for what it's worth... this is not more stringent or dogmatic than other posts. IMO that statement mischaracterizes JoeMo. He is a fair supporter of SDA, it's just that he has a (more?) balanced view of things.

If we are going to pat ourselves on the back and attack other Christians, as you say, then of course we are in for a rude awakening. The deep issue will be Christian sincerity and a vital connection with Christ. SDAs come and SDAs go, and God is well able to use coming events to weed out the complacent hypocrites among us and bring in His own, if He wants it to be the SDAs who are saved in the end. For those of us who think we are standing, let us take heed lest we fall. There are no shortcuts to salvation, and Jesus is the Door. The Sabbath is one of His Ten Words, a moral requirement. So, if it is the commandment especially controverted in the last days, of course God could use it as THE test, if He wishes to do so. On some of these details, people may have differing opinions if they wish. We are going to see how all of this plays out, and God knows those who are His. He will save us, no matter how mistaken we may be on non-essential points. JoeMo, I have not previously seen you appear so dogmatic in your opposition to SDA teaching. What's the real issue? If it's arrogance and censoriousness, on our part, I will posit that doctrine is not the problem. We are not converted to Christ in the first place.

This comment also reflects remarks by JoeMo, so I shall respond briefly. Anyone familiar with what SDA evangelists commonly teach from the Scriptures will know about Revelation 13 and its "sea beast" that alludes back to Daniel 7, and is obviously the same papacy as the bloody "little horn." They will know the passage about the "deadly wound" and its eventual healing. We have always interpreted this as a prophetic prediction that the papacy as a persecuting power will someday come back with a vengeance, regardless of how benign it may seem to be at present. Some may have opinions to the contrary, but I believe that the Scriptures, as taught by Seventh-day Adventists, will be exonerated in the end.

If, as it claims to be, the Bible is the word of the infinite God, then there are going to be things that are beyond human comprehension. There will be very much that will stretch our finite minds to their limit, as well as the ability of the Bible writers to express them in imperfect human language. If we take at face value the claim of Scripture that the thoughts and ideas of its writers were "God-breathed," then we have to assume that there will be an underlying harmony despite any apparent surface contradictions. We also have to assume that we shall struggle to understand its teachings in all of their depth and complexity. In other words, a humble and awed approach to the Scriptures is incumbent upon us.

Brings tears to me eyes, JoeMo. SDA isolate themselves by living in a 19th century world and isolating everyone else. But we are all Brothers and Sisters in Christ. 1 Corinthians 1:13 "Is Christ divided?"

Thanks for that LR. I was a "good" Catholic for the first 20 years of my life. Vatican II occurred while I was in Catholic High School; and I was very pleased at the time to see the positive changes made. Most of my family and several old friends are still practicing Catholics; and none of the ever put down my SDA faith. Several years ago, I went to Mass with my mom (now deceased); and was invited to bring the bread and wine to the altar during the Offertory I advised them to invite someone else, because I wasn't Catholic. The deacon asked if I was a believing Christian; and I said yes. He then repeated His invitation. I think traditional SDA's need to back off of their denigration of the RCC and the Papacy and focus on the reality of the times in which we live. Who has killed more Christians and Jews over the past 75 years - the RCC or Islam? Who continues to preach for the destruction of Israel and it's staunchest ally (America) - the RCC or Islam? While EGW had every justification in her day to point to the RCC and the papacy as the antichrist, there is absolutely no justification to do that now. Times have changed. I want to be clear - I am not pointing a finger at the majority of moderate Muslims living in North America who want the same thing as most Christians - to practice their religion in peace and let others do the same. But radical fundamental Islam is actually practicing what the post-Medina part of the Quran and the majority of the hadiths preach.

This statement reveals a lack of awareness of the current condition of the Catholic Church, and the changes ushered in by Vatican II. It begs the question(s): "Do you actually KNOW any Catholics personally? are they knowledgeable regarding their church? have you discussed the Catholic Church's current position with them? or is your knowledge of the RCC derived from SDA/SOP/EGW? There have been fundamental shifts in RCC viewpoints, doctrine, and directives that Protestants should be aware of, especially if said Protestants are trash-talking the RCC. I am not myself a Catholic, and I do not attempt to present as an authority on Catholic matters; I'll leave that to Gregory. However, when I have a question regarding the RCC, I do not look to SDA/SOP/EGW for answers. Instead, I set up a meeting with my friend Mike M., who is the Director of Religious Education for the Archdiocese in which I live. The (pre-21st century) view that "The Catholics" are going to persecute God's people is out-dated, and no longer valid. A simple reading of the Biblical text (ie: the characteristics of the Beast/persecuting power) and basic knowledge of the RCC will immediately debunk that theory. There is another group that is a much better fit. This is, however, a discussion for another thread.

HCH, yes a fact is a fact. However sometimes there may be a debate as to what is a fact. That is the case for the story of EGW holding the Bible over her head. Debate exists as to the details of that story to include whether or not it actually happened. One of the reasons for the debate is that EGW never records it as happening. There are also other reasons. However, I do not object to you believing that it actually happened. It may be true. I do take issue with anyone that would suggest that such a miracle is proof that EGW was used by God. some miracles come f rom a source other than God.

When I was in "Juniors" at campmeeting, that Bible came to our class. I had the opportunity to hold that Bible. I could not imagine holding it, even now in the way it is described that EGW held it. Try holding out a dumbbell for any length of time and see how that goes for you, and they would be easier to hold on too. Even if she was in vision, I suspect there were angels holding up that Bible.

Effective, fervent prayer Jas 5:16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

5 Facts About The Tomb of The Unknown Soldier On May 28, 1984, President Reagan led the state funeral at Arlington National Cemetery for an unidentified American soldier killed in the Vietnam War. Here are 5 things you never knew about the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier... The Unknown Soldier Representing the Vietnam War Was Identified In 1998, the remains of the unknown Vietnam War soldier were exhumed and a mitochondrial DNA test was performed. He was found to be Michael Joseph Blassie, a 1st Lieutenant in the Air Force whose plane was shot down in 1972 near An Loc. The family of Blassie had the soldier reburied in St. Louis, and while no other unknown soldier took his place at Arlington Cemetery, a plaque was placed there honoring American soldiers missing from 1958-1975. The Sentries are Members of the 3rd Infantry Regiment The Sentries at the tomb are chosen from the regiment known as “The Old Guard,” which is distinguished by being the oldest infantry unit that is still active in service. The name comes from General Winfield Scott in 1847, when he called the 3rd Infantry that during a Mexico City victory parade. The 3rd Infantry has been serving the United States since the Revolutionary War. The Tomb of the Unknown Soldier Was Approved by Congress in 1921 Congress passed a bill approving the burial of an unknown World War 1 soldier at the Memorial Amphitheater on March 4, 1921. The sarcophagus, made of white marble, is above the resting place of the soldier, flat on the top and has neoclassical columns with marble wreaths between the columns. Three figures that represent Victory, Valor and Peace are on the east side of the tomb with an inscription on the back that says “Here rests in honored glory an American soldier known but to God.” The World War I Soldier Was Chosen From Four Who Died in France Four unknown soldiers who served in World War I were chosen in 1921 on Memorial Day from French cemeteries, and the one to be shipped to the United States to represent all WWI unknown soldiers was chosen by Edward F. Younger, a highly decorated Army sergeant. The deceased soldier that was chosen was shipped to the United States on board the USS Olympia and placed in the Capitol Rotunda until the ceremony that was held on Armistice Day. The ceremony at Arlington National Ceremony was presided over by President Warren G. Harding on November 11, 1921. The Unknown Soldiers for World War II and the Korean War Were Chosen in 1956 Legislation was passed and signed in 1956 by President Dwight Eisenhower to honor the unknown servicemen of World War II and the Korean War. Two World War II unknowns were chosen from the Pacific and European theaters of war, and the choice was made by William R. Charette, who was the only Medal of Honor Recipient in the Navy who was still on active duty. Army Master Sgt chose the unknown soldier representing the Korean War. Ned Lyle, and both the unknowns, were awarded a Medal of Honor before they were laid to rest at Arlington Cemetery.

The White Estate has the Bible that it is said that EGW held above her head. It has been weighed at 18 1/2 pounds. That is less than the 3 gallons of milk that HCH says is the minimum that the Bible weighs. It is far less than the 40 pounds that has been alleged to be its weight. What this demonstrates is that even if there is some truth in this myth, there is also error. The story that we have today can not be depended upon.

I agree there is inconsistency in translations of the Hebrew. Same inconsistency that exists in your view: you believe "ben elohim" in Job referred to angels; but the "ben elohim" in Genesis referred to humans. But Moses was consistent. He used "ben elohim" if he was referring to angels, "ben adam" when referring to humans. Had he used "ben elohim" to refer to humans in Gen 6, but then used "ben adam" elsewhere to refer to humans, then he was also inconsistent.