Through the Bible: Genesis

[Twilight]

Just a note:

Psa 137:8 O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy [shall he be], that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.

Psa 137:9 Happy [shall he be], that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

This does not necessarily imply that it is God that is happy here.

But the "individual" who brings the punishment, will be happy.

Question is here John, who is the "he".

Is it:

A. God.

B. An agent of God.

C. An enemy of Babylon.

Now when I consider the destruction of Babylon at the end of time, it is the 10 kings that rise up and destroy Babylon (as memory serves).

So then if the psalm is related to that event the "he" would be the ten kings.

Or if it was related to the historic babylon, the "he" would have been Medo-Persia.

Either way, it would be "C".

Your thoughts?

Mark :-)

[Nic Samojluk]

"Discovery" is a poor choice of words. "Accusation" is better.

[Nic Samojluk]

You said elsewhere that you believe Ellen White to be an inspired prophet. Yet here you're speaking of a choice we must make, between Jesus Christ, and an inspired prophet. Does this choice apply to other inspired prophets as well? Or only Ellen White?

My view of inspiration evidently must differ from yours. I do not equate inspiration with either dictation or infallibility. I do believe that certain individuals had a greater ability to comprehend and express what the Lord communicated to them than others. My view is that the Gospels contain a better description of God’s character that the book of Judges or the Chronicles, for example.

[Nic Samojluk]

What about accepting the errors of critics who erroneously attribute errors to copyists who copied error free Scripture though the critics,in error themselves, accused them of errors which were,in fact,labeled as erroneous erroneously??Like some of your examples.

Are you suggesting that Ellen White was mistaken when she told us that some Bible copyist introduces certain errors in the sacred text?

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: Doug

What about accepting the errors of critics who erroneously attribute errors to copyists who copied error free Scripture though the critics,in error themselves, accused them of errors which were,in fact,labeled as erroneous erroneously??Like some of your examples.

Are you suggesting that Ellen White was mistaken when she told us that some Bible copyist introduces certain errors in the sacred text?

Nope.

[doug yowell]

Yes, good point, Mark.

Much of the Psalms express the feelings and thoughts of the writer, and obviously do not convey the viewpoint of God. :

Your explanation is very troubling, John. If one believes this (higher criticism) to be true it throws the whole concept of inspiration into the shredder. If much of the Psalms express only the thoughts of the writer and not God's thoughts and feelings,than Where did that inspiration come from???And how do we so easily determine which thoughts are God's and which are the opposite of God's? If holy men of old wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit then exactly how well did they listen or how accurate were their thoughts. the answers become more and more subjective as we filter out the things that don't seem to fit in with our "maturing" picture of God.It seems that an "I don't understand" answer is safer than an "that's not God talking" one.

[Nic Samojluk]

Matt. 18: 19 is definitely part of Scripture, but if you want to jettison it, it doesn't matter. It doesn't make the biblical argument for the Trinity any less strong. In fact, you can do the same with 1 John 5: 7 as well, and it won't make a whit of difference as far as Bible doctrine is concerned.

If your theory is correct, we should find at least one or two examples in the New Testament where Christians did baptize using the Matthew 28:19 threefold formula. The fact is that we find none! Strange, isn’t it? I asked Pastor Matthews about this, and he said: “Nobody ever asked me this question before.” We are safer following the example we find in Scripture instead of basing our beliefs on a questionable text.

[Nic Samojluk]

There's no such thing as healthy, good masturbation, any more than there is good, healthy sin of any other kind. Ellen White says nothing that indicates she thinks a little self-abuse, i.e., masturbation, is a fine thing.

[Dr. Shane]

some think she was wrong about masturbation, and therefore they think it's OK...

[Nic Samojluk]

Yes, I have, many times. It's about a man and a woman who are betrothed to each other, that is, about to be married. Being betrothed in those days and in that culture was the same as being married, since for a couple to break off their betrothal, it was necessary to divorce.

[doug yowell]

Are we almost to Exodus??

[Nic Samojluk]

There's no true contradiction between Ps. 137: 9 and Christ's statements any more than there is between Ellen White's words and the words found in Lev. 15.

[Nic Samojluk]

Let me share with you what Ellen White said about this :

Quote:

I have had great light from the Lord upon the subject of health reform. I did not seek this light; I did not study to obtain it; it was given to me by the Lord to give to others. {CD 493.4}

Quote:

After the vision was given me, my husband was aroused upon the health questions. He obtained books, upon our Eastern journey, but I would not read them. My view was clear, and I did not want to read anything until I had fully completed my books. My views were written independent of books or of the opinions of others.--Manuscript 7, 1867. {3SM 282.3}

Quote:

My reply was that I had not, neither should I read them till I had fully written out my views, lest it should be said that I have received my light upon the subject of health from physicians, and not from the Lord. {3SM 277.2}

Quote:

It was at the house of Bro. A. Hilliard, at Otsego, Mich., June 6, 1863, that the great subject of Health Reform was opened before me in vision. I did not visit Dansville till August, 1864, fourteen months after I had the view. I did not read any works upon health until I had written Spiritual Gifts, Vols. iii and iv, Appeal to Mothers, and had sketched out most of my six articles in the six numbers of "How to Live." I did not know that such a paper existed as the Laws of Life, published at Dansville, N.Y. I had not heard of the several works upon health, written by Dr. J. C. Jackson, and other publications at Dansville, at the time I had the view named above. I did not know that such works existed until September, 1868, when in Boston, Mass., my husband saw them advertised in a periodical called the Voice of the Prophets, published by Eld. J. V. Himes. My husband ordered the works from Dansville and received them at Topsham Maine. His business gave him no time to peruse them, and as I determined not to read them until I had written out my views, the books remained in their wrappers. {RH, October 8, 1867 par. 3}

Quote:

. As I introduced the subject of health to friends where I labored in Michigan, New England, and in the State of New York, and spoke against drugs and flesh meats, and in favor of water, pure air, and a proper diet, the reply was often made, "You speak very nearly the opinions taught in the Laws of Life, and other publications, by Drs. Trall, Jackson, and others. Have you read that paper and those works? "My reply was that I had not, neither should I read them till I had fully written out my views, lest it should be said that I had received my light upon the subject of health from physicians, and not from the Lord. {RH, October 8, 1867 par. 3}

See my next posting!

[Nic Samojluk]

The quotations above seem to indicate that Ellen White was not dependent on other authors for the material contained in her many books. They leave the clear impression that she was not dependent on the writing of other writers for the content of her books. These are the quotations which were emphasized in our schools and colleges, and this is the education I received from my church.

The only exception, we were told by our teachers, was the “Great Controversy” which did contain references to the writings of others. The same impression was confirmed both by James, her husband, and by her grandson who travelled the world with this message.

Was this true? Today we know that all this was window dressing. The people at the top did know that there were serious problems with the writing of Ellen White because there had been a discussion of this in 1919, but the church decided to bury what was discovered and discussed then, and the leaders determined to keep the lid on this knowledge. Of course, truth cannot be hidden forever, and this is why when Walter Rea reported to the church what he had discovered, all hell broke loose.

He was fired and his retirement benefits were offered to him on condition that he abstain from any further investigation and publishing on this matter. Other experts investigated the matter, and the church finally publicly admitted what could no longer be concealed. Ellen White did use other sources for the books she published without acknowledging her sources. It became impossible to continue believing that Ellen was not dependent on other sources for her writings.

The only question which remained was: Was Ellen White guilty of plagiarism—the intentional decision to engage in deception. In this there is no current agreement. Some of the investigators concluded that she intentionally deceived her readers while others think that this was a minor oversight and that she is blameless of misrepresenting the fact that she was relying on the writings of others.

Among those who have dug very deep into her use of sources there are some who have concluded that she was not a true prophet. They argue that if she engaged in deceptive behavior, she cannot be a true prophet. Others believe that she was merely human with the frailties common to all human beings.

I believe that she did have genuine visions from the Lord and that she was instrumental in the development and growth of the Adventist Church. She was not perfect, and she probably felt that if she had given credit for all the borrowing she had engaged in, people would have concluded that all this knowledge contained in her books were not the result of her visionary experience, but rather the result of her dependency on the writings of others.

I do understand her predicament. I wish she had kept a clear distinction between what she received from the Lord and what she borrowed from others coupled with full credit for all the borrowing she had engaged in. Since she failed to do this, I have no other alternative but to test her writing by the Bible and try to distinguish between what is firmly anchored in a “Thus said the Lord” and what might be the result of her reliance on the writings of others. Are you going to condemn me for this? I cannot agree with your policy of either accepting or rejecting everything she has written. That is a choice I am not ready to make.

See my next posting!

[Nic Samojluk]

In my search for some of Ellen’s quotations, I discovered what I had never read before. An admission by Ellen of heavy borrowing for some of her writings in addition to the Great Controversy. Here it is:

Quote:

And after I had written my six articles for How to Live, I then searched the various works on hygiene and was surprised to find them so nearly in harmony with what the Lord had revealed to me. And to show this harmony, and to set before my brethren and sisters the subject as brought out by able writers, I determined to publish "How to Live," in which I largely extracted from the works referred to. {RH, October 8, 1867 par. 3}

My question is: Why didn’t she acknowledge her sources like she did in her “Great Controversy” book? It is evident that she was familiar with the need to use quotation marks when using somebody else’s words. Notice the following:

Quote:

And here I would state that although I am as dependent upon the Spirit of the Lord in writing my views as I am in receiving them, yet the words I employ in describing what I have seen are my own, unless they be those spoken to me by an angel, which I always enclose in marks of quotation. {3SM 278.5}

We all know that she had very little formal schooling, but she had the benefit of very fine and well educated literary assistants, which means that there was no valid excuse for failing to give credit to others for material she was using. Walter Rea did document some dramatic examples of literary borrowing where, not only the words were borrowed from other authors, but even the pictures and illustrations, and what is even more questionable behavior:

The original signature of the authors of those illustrations were erased for obvious reasons. If this is not evidence of intentional deception, then I don’t know what deception is. Of course she blamed the publishers for this. Those were her books, and she had the duty to examine what was being published in her name. Wouldn’t you agree?

Now notice a minor oversight in her writings. Ellen stated that when quoting the actual words of her accompanying angel, she was careful to use quotation marks. There is a little problem with this, though. My question is: Did the angel speak modern or Old English? The evidence seems to indicate that on occasion her angel did use modern English and at other times Old English. Here is the evidence:

Quote:

I begged of my attending angel to let me remain in that place. I could not bear the thought of coming back to this dark world again. Then the angel said, "You must go back, and if you are faithful, you, with the 144,000, shall have the privilege of visiting all the worlds and viewing the handiwork of God." {Mar 368.6}

Quote:

The angel said, "Think ye that any will be compelled to sacrifice? No, no. It must be a freewill offering. It will take all to buy the field." {EW 50.3}

Quote:

Said the angel, "Gird the armor about thee, and above all take the shield of faith; for that will guard the heart, the very life, from the fiery darts of the wicked." (74) {EW 73.2}

See my next posting!

[Nic Samojluk]

It was known that she used the writings of other people, but it wasn't known to what extent she used them until studies were done to determine this. But she never lied about it.

[Twilight]

The quotations above seem to indicate that Ellen White was not dependent on other authors for the material contained in her many books. They leave the clear impression that she was not dependent on the writing of other writers for the content of her books. These are the quotations which were emphasized in our schools and colleges, and this is the education I received from my church.

The only exception, we were told by our teachers, was the “Great Controversy” which did contain references to the writings of others. The same impression was confirmed both by James, her husband, and by her grandson who travelled the world with this message.

Was this true? Today we know that all this was window dressing. The people at the top did know that there were serious problems with the writing of Ellen White because there had been a discussion of this in 1919, but the church decided to bury what was discovered and discussed then, and the leaders determined to keep the lid on this knowledge. Of course, truth cannot be hidden forever, and this is why when Walter Rea reported to the church what he had discovered, all hell broke loose.

He was fired and his retirement benefits were offered to him on condition that he abstain from any further investigation and publishing on this matter. Other experts investigated the matter, and the church finally publicly admitted what could no longer be concealed. Ellen White did use other sources for the books she published without acknowledging her sources. It became impossible to continue believing that Ellen was not dependent on other sources for her writings.

The only question which remained was: Was Ellen White guilty of plagiarism—the intentional decision to engage in deception. In this there is no current agreement. Some of the investigators concluded that she intentionally deceived her readers while others think that this was a minor oversight and that she is blameless of misrepresenting the fact that she was relying on the writings of others.

Among those who have dug very deep into her use of sources there are some who have concluded that she was not a true prophet. They argue that if she engaged in deceptive behavior, she cannot be a true prophet. Others believe that she was merely human with the frailties common to all human beings.

I believe that she did have genuine visions from the Lord and that she was instrumental in the development and growth of the Adventist Church. She was not perfect, and she probably felt that if she had given credit for all the borrowing she had engaged in, people would have concluded that all this knowledge contained in her books were not the result of her visionary experience, but rather the result of her dependency on the writings of others.

I do understand her predicament. I wish she had kept a clear distinction between what she received from the Lord and what she borrowed from others coupled with full credit for all the borrowing she had engaged in. Since she failed to do this, I have no other alternative but to test her writing by the Bible and try to distinguish between what is firmly anchored in a “Thus said the Lord” and what might be the result of her reliance on the writings of others. Are you going to condemn me for this? I cannot agree with your policy of either accepting or rejecting everything she has written. That is a choice I am not ready to make.

See my next posting!

Problem is Nic, you have been quoting a specific instance.

You have been quoting what Ellen White said about her books on health reform, that she had not borrowed that from other literature.

You are then using that as an argument against any instance of Ellen White using other sources.

So you are using statements on health reform books and misapplying them as if it is Ellen Whites claims for all of her books, that is how it seems anyway?

Mark

[John317]

Yes, good point, Mark.

Much of the Psalms express the feelings and thoughts of the writer, and obviously do not convey the viewpoint of God.

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

Your explanation is very troubling, John. If one believes this (higher criticism) to be true it throws the whole concept of inspiration into the shredder. If much of the Psalms express only the thoughts of the writer and not God's thoughts and feelings,than Where did that inspiration come from???

Psalms is a collection of songs written to express the feelings and thoughts of worshipers of God, and therefore not everything found in those songs express God's thoughts. In the same way, there are things in the prophets which convey the thoughts of the prophets and not of God.

Yet the statements are inspired as much as the statements that express God's thoughts and viewpoint.

Two examples:

Ps. 74: 1

O God, why do you cast us off forever?

Why does your anger smoke against the sheep of your pasture?

Lament. 3:55

"I called on your name, O Lord,

from the depths of the pit.

Who is speaking here?

NOTE: I'm not saying these verses are not inspired. I believe the entire Bible is the inspired word of God.

[John317]

For Walter Rea it was his discovery which lead to the accusation. He discovered the similarity between Mrs. White's writings and that of other authors by accident.

Speaking as moderator:

Let's get the discussion back on topic: Genesis.

If you want to talk some more about masturbation, Rea's views or Ellen White's borrowing, that is fine, but please do it on a discussion devoted to those topics.

[Nic Samojluk]

Just a note:

Psa 137:8 O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy [shall he be], that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.

Psa 137:9 Happy [shall he be], that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

This does not necessarily imply that it is God that is happy here.

But the "individual" who brings the punishment, will be happy.

[doug yowell]

[

You are right. The text does not imply that God rejoices at the misfortune of sinners. But it does state that Israelites would rejoice when little children will be dashed against the rocks, and this is wrong according to other texts of Scripture.

Exactly where does it state that the Israelites would rejoice? Nowhere!!Notice there is no I or we in those verses. You just added the word Israelites to the text to make it fit your complaint,Nic. Since the Israelites never conquered Babylon,and it had already been prophesied that another nation would be the one to fulfill this prophesy, why are you substituting Israelites for "he" and the inspired writer as uninspired?

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Nic Samojluk

[

You are right. The text does not imply that God rejoices at the misfortune of sinners. But it does state that Israelites would rejoice when little children will be dashed against the rocks, and this is wrong according to other texts of Scripture.

Exactly where does it state that the Israelites would rejoice? Nowhere!!Notice there is no I or we in those verses. You just added the word Israelites to the text to make it fit your complaint,Nic. Since the Israelites never conquered Babylon,and it had already been prophesied that another nation would be the one to fulfill this prophesy, why are you substituting Israelites for "he" and the inspired writer as uninspired?

I was about to make the same point Doug.

The text does not mention Israelites or God.

Those that are to rejoice are either:

A) The Medo-Persians.

The "Ten Kings" that destroy "Babylon" at the end of time.

Because only those two groups have ever been indicated as "destroying" Babylon, either in the past or future.

Mark :-)

[doug yowell]

[i was about to make the same point Doug.

The text does not mention Israelites or God.

Those that are to rejoice are either:

A) The Medo-Persians.

The "Ten Kings" that destroy "Babylon" at the end of time.

Because only those two groups have ever been indicated as "destroying" Babylon, either in the past or future.

Mark :-)

Oops! Sorry to interrupt. But you make valid points.

[Nic Samojluk]

Can you specify a few such errors?

[Nic Samojluk]

I wonder about people who frequently talk about perceived errors in either the Bible or Ellen White's writings.