Literalism and Bibliolatry

[Kevin H]

Please show your references for what you say here.

Where does the Bible teach that Joshua was not among the spies?

Where does the Bible say that only one spy went out?

You say that Deut. says all 12 spies were faithful, but Deut. 1: 34-38 clearly states that only Joshua and Calab were faithful among the spies. In both stories, all of the spies brought back reports that the land was flowing with milk and honey. But that was not the end of their report.

In Numbers 13 and 14, 12 men were sent, including both Calab and Joshua. It says when the men returned, all agreed that the land was good. But it says that except for Calab and Joshua, the spies feared because of the giants in the land. Calab, however, said they could go up and take the land. That is when the people murmered against Moses and refused to go up and take the land.

The same story is told in Deut. 1. It says 12 spies went out and among them were Calab and Joshua. See Deut. 1: 36, 38.

Please show where the Bible contradicts what is said in Numbers 13, 14 and Deut. 1.

Be careful not to fall into a situation of not reading carefully and pushing your ideas into the words you are looking at, with both my post and the Biblical text. I did not say that only one spy went out. All the references are to 12 spys going out. In Bible classes at AUC and Andrews we in class would read several passesges on this, and some of the lists of spys mention Joshua, others do not, and in some discussions such as with Caleb and Joshua that should have said "Us" and "We" has Caleb only saying "Me" and informing Joshua about things that the spy stories have Joshua doing.

Numbers 13:31- 23 reads "But those who had gone with him [Caleb, and notice it does not say Joshua and Caleb and it has Caleb alone against the rest of the spys] said 'We can't attack those people they are stronger than we are' and those men gave the Israelites a bad report about the land they explored."

Deuteronomy 1: 25-26 says "...They [the 12 spys] said 'it is a good land that the Lord our God is giving us' But you [the people behind, despite the message of the spys] refused to go.

[John317]

....A major contradiction is between Mark and Luke. Luke was clearly familiar with Mark and quoted Mark and would have points where Luke saw Mark as correct, but also other places where he saw Mark as incorrect and he wanted to tell what he had studies in contradiction to Mark.

How do you know what Luke "wanted" to do?

Do you really believe that Luke set out to show that Mark was wrong?

Originally Posted By: Kevin H

A big disagreement between the two books is in Mark no one understands who Jesus is, Jesus keeps interacting with people who should have known who he was but they don't.

Can you give some examples?

Originally Posted By: Kevin H

Finally on the cross the centurion finally realizes just who Jesus is, who realized that Jesus was God, but this truth came to a man so pagan that he expresses the truth in words that would horrify any monotheistic Jew, when he said "a son of the gods" which is how pagans described the gods. Yet this pagan realized what none of the Jews realized.

No, actually what Mark records the Centurian as saying is, "Surely this man was God's son." He did not say "gods." The noun, theou is definitely singular, not plural. In Greek, the words are, "uios theou," and are best and most accurately renedered, "God's son," or possibly, "a son of god." It's probable that the centurian did not have much knowledge of "the God," which is the reason that it doesn't say, "ho uios tou theou," the Son of God.

However, it is interesting that Luke tells us that this centurian (assuming that it is the same man) "praised the God." The inclusion of the definite article clearly indicats that the Roman centurian praised the true God.

Originally Posted By: Kevin H

In Luke on the other hand John the Baptist knew who Jesus was before either were born, and Elizabeth realized who Jesus was before he was born, and at his birth the shepherds knew who he was, at his circumcise Simon and Anna knew who he was, and Jesus goes through life with many people recognizing who he is, and when he dies on the cross our centurion only says "he was a good man"

In Luke 23: 47, the centurian is quoted as having said, "Surely this was a righteous man."

This does not contradict what Mark's gospel says. It actually complements it. Is there any reason to think that this same centurian could not have said both things? I can't imagine that he only uttered the words that Mark records. No doubt he also taled about what a good man he was, so different from all the other convicted criminals he had watched die.

If a newspaper reporter hears the president say one thing and another hears him say another, do we suppose that one of the reporters is in error if they quote him differently? So why do we make such an assumption here? I suspect it's probably because we are looking for contradictions and errors. So that is what some people will find. It is like two attorney's, one looking to find contradictions in your testimony, and the other looking for ways to harmonize it.

Jesus said:

If anyone's will is to do God's will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority. John 7: 17.

John 8:47

Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God."

Daniel 12:10

Many shall purify themselves and make themselves white and be refined, but the wicked shall act wickedly. And none of the wicked shall understand, but those who are wise shall understand.

NOTE: It is a person's motives that detrmine what he finds in the word of God and ultimately decide how he responds to it.

Originally Posted By: Kevin H

Both Mark and Luke give us different perspectives on Jesus, and while we don't know which one was right (that only the centurion knew who Jesus was, or if a lot of people did, and speaking of the centurion, did he realize that Jesus was God, or did he think Jesus was a good man?) yet I'd rather live with this uncertainty and have both gospels for their perspectives on Jesus than to accept one as true and throw out the other for not agreeing with the truth.

Your statements about one telling the truth and the other not telling the truth are good examples of what I said before-- that if we are perfectly content with contradictions and falsehoods in the Bible, we will see contradictions and falsehood where there are none. I heard such theories taught in classes on the Bible that I took in public colleges. It was common for the teacher to ridicule the Bible as he was reading the Proverbs or the Torah to the class. He would say things that remind me of what you are saying. He would be laughing while he said it.

[Kevin H]

Of course I did not study religion in public colleges, mine are from Atlantic Union College, The Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, and a couple of classes at Loma Linda University, and The Jerusalem Center for Biblical Studies. All strongly loving Jesus and the Bible, but either liberal fundamentalists or non-fundamentalists.

And if you were to read your very own posts on another current thread here on townhall, the thread on Ellen White and the Spirit of Prophecy, you are teaching exactly what my point is, and these are examples these professors used in teaching those points. It appears to me that you are doing a lot of tap dancing over these texts to make they fit tradition, but when you come across places that you can't tap dance over, then you agree with me. It is strange how you appeal to the same professors and same ideas that I appeal to, but while I see myself as consistantly using those ideas and turn to these which these professors used to illustrate the point, you seem to tap dance when you can and only turn to the what these professors teach when you are in too tight a corner to tapdance. I see no difference between what I am saying here and what you are saying in that other thread.

[John317]

It appears to me that you are doing a lot of tap dancing over these texts to make they fit tradition, but when you come across places that you can't tap dance over, then you agree with me.

For instance?

As I told you last week or so, I don't care about "tradition". I care about Bible truth.

I could say that you do a lot of tap-dancing in order to undercut the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy. Should I go down that road since you seem to like it that way?

Originally Posted By: Kevin H

It is strange how you appeal to the same professors and same ideas that I appeal to, but while I see myself as consistantly using those ideas and turn to these which these professors used to illustrate the point, you seem to tap dance when you can and only turn to the what these professors teach when you are in too tight a corner to tapdance. I see no difference between what I am saying here and what you are saying in that other thread.

As long as you are going to bring up what I said on another thread, you might as well be straight about it as you can be and give the name of the discussion and the post#. Otherwise, all you are doing is making a claim, and anyone can make any claim they want to just as long as they don't have to support it with solid evidence.

What "professors" and ideas are you referring to?

What do you mean by "tap-dance"? Show me an example of where you believe I am "tap-dancing".

As I follow your posts, I just see too many times when you say things without even being sure of what you're saying. Last time you said that Ellen White said in Acts of the Apostles that there would be more people saved then lost.

On this discussion you mentioned "contradictions" about the spies which turn out to be no contradictions at all. Then you also missquote the centurian, making it appear that he said that Christ was "the son of the gods." Since you are a former theology student at Andrews U, I would think you would at least check your sources before you say things like that.

It is you who has been tap-dancing. You danced around the quote you couldn't find, saying you hadn't seen it since you were in the 10th or 11th grade but which you said you are sure exists in AA. Have you located that statement yet?

[Sonny]

Why not accept the Bible's message that God has killed before, as in the Flood and at Sodom, and that He will destroy sinners at the second coming and again after the one thousand years?

Why prefer one's own opinions over the plain teachings of the Bible?

It's not that cut and dry, John. Maybe you are just surface reading....?

[John317]

You say that Deut. says all 12 spies were faithful, but Deut. 1: 34-38 clearly states that only Joshua and Calab were faithful among the spies. In both stories, all of the spies brought back reports that the land was flowing with milk and honey. But that was not the end of their report.

In Numbers 13 and 14, 12 men were sent, including both Calab and Joshua. It says when the men returned, all agreed that the land was good. But it says that except for Calab and Joshua, the spies feared because of the giants in the land. Calab, however, said they could go up and take the land. That is when the people murmered against Moses and refused to go up and take the land.

The same story is told in Deut. 1. It says 12 spies went out and among them were Calab and Joshua. See Deut. 1: 36, 38.

Please show where the Bible contradicts what is said in Numbers 13, 14 and Deut. 1.

Originally Posted By: Kevin H

Be careful not to fall into a situation of not reading carefully and pushing your ideas into the words you are looking at, with both my post and the Biblical text. I did not say that only one spy went out.

You said:

Originally Posted By: Kevin H

]"for example when Moses first sent spys into the land, how many faithful spys were there? 2? 1?or 12? Depends on where you read. The main story says 2,...

You clearly imply there that some places say that 1 spy went out. You also say that some places say only 2 went out.

The main story-- Numbers 13-- says that 12 went out.

So, what do you mean that "the main story says 2"?

Originally Posted By: Kevin H

All the references are to 12 spys going out.

Agreed. All the references agree that 12 went out. So why did you say that the main story says 2 went out. And you suggested that some places say only 1 went out.

Originally Posted By: Kevin H

In Bible classes at AUC and Andrews we in class would read several passesges on this, and some of the lists of spys mention Joshua, others do not,

Have you checked the lists of the spies since you were in college?

Is the complete list of the spies given more than once? I can only find it in Numbers 13.

I see Joshua listed in Numbers 13: 8 under the name "Hoshea." Perhaps that is why you thought Joshua was not listed. But he is said in all the texts dealing with the subject to have been one of the spies. I see no contradiction so far.

If you find this is not true, please show the evidence.

Originally Posted By: Kevin H

and in some discussions such as with Caleb and Joshua that should have said "Us" and "We" has Caleb only saying "Me" and informing Joshua about things that the spy stories have Joshua doing.

Could you cite the verses or quote them, please?

Are you referring to Joshua 14: 6-13? If so, where's the supposed contradiction? Caleb is talking to Joshua and telling him what he did, but he is not implying that Joshua wasn't there. Verse 6, in fact, says that they were together.

Numbers 14: 6,7 says specifically that Joshua had been one of the spies, and there it says "we."

Originally Posted By: Kevin H

(quoting): Numbers 13:31- 23 reads "But those who had gone with him [Caleb, and notice it does not say Joshua and Caleb and it has Caleb alone against the rest of the spys] said 'We can't attack those people they are stronger than we are' and those men gave the Israelites a bad report about the land they explored."

This is what I mean about making contradictions where there are no contradictions. The story in Numbers 13 is very clear that Joshua had gone up to spy along with Caleb.

The reason it refers to Caleb in verse 31 ["him"] is simply that verse 30 shows that Calab was the one who spoke up and urged the people to go take the land. Since verse 30 quotes Caleb, it is only natural that the next verse would say "him" and not "them."

If you don't follow me here, let me show you how it would sound if the writer had written "them" instead of "him", and then you tll me which version you prefer:

[30] Then Caleb quieted the people before Moses, and said, "Let us go up at once and take possession, for we are well able to overcome it." [31] But the men who had gone up with THEM said...

That makes no sense, does it?

If that verse was all you read, you would conclude that "them" must refer to Caleb and Moses. And of coure that would be wrong. So the only appropriate pronoun is the one that agrees with the antecedent, "Caleb," and that is third person singular.

Are you telling me this is what you consider a contradiction or a problem?

If you were writing the story, are you saying that you would write "the men who had gone up with them"?

This is exactly what I am talking about when I say if you are OK with contradictions, you will find them even where they ain't.

You seem to be "tap-dancing" (to use your expression)all around in order to get a contradiction.

Originally Posted By: Kevin H

(quoting): Deuteronomy 1: 25-26 says "...They [the 12 spys] said 'it is a good land that the Lord our God is giving us' But you [the people behind, despite the message of the spys] refused to go.

It's true that all 12 spies told the truth about the goodness of the land.

But why wouldn't the people go up? The reason was that 10 of the spies said that there were giants in the land that would destroy the Israelites. The rest of the chapter assumes that you know why God swore that those other spies would not be allowed to enter the Promised Land. Verses 36, 38 say that only Joshua and Caleb will be able to go in, and God was angry with all the others. Why was God angry and refuse to let the other spies go in? Well, the obvious answer is what it says in Numbers 13, that they showed a lack of faith in God and frightened the people, discouraging them from obeying the Lord.

I see this story as, among other things, an important illustration of the seriousness of discouraging people from obeying God and His word.

We are on the border of the Promised Land, and God is telling us to go in and take it. There are many who stand around and complain about all the "giants" [sins and problems galore] that we can't possibly overcome. And then there are others who encourage this kind of negative thinking and tell us that God's word is not all that trustworthy and that His prophet also can't always be trusted to tell the truth.

OK, who's dancing? :-)

[John317]

Why not accept the Bible's message that God has killed before, as in the Flood and at Sodom, and that He will destroy sinners at the second coming and again after the one thousand years?

Why prefer one's own opinions over the plain teachings of the Bible?

Originally Posted By: Sonny

It's not that cut and dry, John. Maybe you are just surface reading....?

Do you also want to join those who prefer their own opinions over the Bible?

I believe people are surface reading when they claim God has never taken human life before and never will.

People do destroy themselves by choosing to do wrong and sin, and by using poor judgment, refusing to obey God comamndments-- yet in the end, the wicked are destroyed by an act of God, who will bring down fire from heaven onto the wicked.

If you have 12 MR 207-209 and accept Ellen G. White as God's prophet, I believe you will find it very clear. Also see Signs of the Times, Jan. 6, 1881. Elsewhere she makes it abundantly clear that the sentence of punishment is determined by Jesus and the righteous after closely investigating the lives of the wicked. GC 673 also contains important statements on this subject. If we go by what the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy say on the subject, instead of by our opinions, there's no doubt what we will believe about the destruction of the wicked.

Yes, the wicked do destroy themselves by their rejection of God, but God carries out the execution of the sentence against sin and the wicked, just as He did in the Flood and in the destruction of Sodom. The Bible points us to events as examples of the what will take place when the wicked are punished and finally destroyed. Another clear example of where God certainly took human life was in the case of the Egyptians drowning in the Red Sea.

I don't see how we can escape this conclusion when we consider verses such as Rev. 14: 9-11; 19: 11-21; Jude 7, 14,15; and especially 2 Thess. 1: 8 to 2: 12.

The only real question is, do people have enough confidence in God to let Him be God? Or do they judge God like they would a human being, by man's standards and rules, and call God a "killer" or "murderer"?

[John317]

I like the contradictions because they show how much I don't know. The more the Spirit opens my mind to spiritual things the better I understand them.

Do you mean apparent contradictions or do you mean genuine contradictions so that parts of the Bible are false?

For instance, depending on which manscripts (and printed texts) you read, Jude 5 says 1 of 3 things: God rescued Israel from Egypt; the Lord did it; or Jesus did it.

Jude 1:5

I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.

Jude 1:5

Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.

What is the truth?

[John317]

Maybe you are just surface reading....?

OK, maybe so. Could be. But show me.

[John317]

Be careful not to fall into a situation of not reading carefully and pushing your ideas into the words you are looking at, with both my post and the Biblical text.

You mean like you did? :-)

[John317]

... as I’ve discussed before, God is too big and too strange to be captured in one book – or a billion.

Hence the reference to ‘bibliolatry’ – book worship – in the title. When the book itself is worshipped, rather than God, that’s not that different from any other form of idolatry.

The book points to God, and God is bigger than the book.

Of course the book points to God and God is biggger than the book, yet the Bible is the inspired [God-breathed] word of God.

Look at how Christ trusts it: He said the Scriptures cannot be broken. He treated the Bible as if every letter and period was inspired. Matt. 5: 17f. He said we are to live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God, and He was referring to the OT at that time. Both Jesus and Paul must have believed that God helped the writers choose singular over plural nouns or first person singular present over some other form of pronoun because otherwise what they said wouldn't have made sense.

Who do you think is worshipping the Bible?

What tests do you use to know this?

On the basis of what Ellen White wrote about the Bible, do you believe she worshipped the Bible?

I expect that one day we SDAs will face some of our former leaders & pastors who will tell us that we are worshipping the Scriptures by taking it so seriously that we are willing to die rather than sin against God.

Who is it, really, that would like to see people stop trusting the Bible as God's word and conclude that the Bible is full of contradictions and errors?

[Kevin H]

1. Ok, I forgot about your other posts on that post that I am not very comfortable with, but I was thinking of your posts # 431254, March 21, 2011 12:21 AM; 431258, 3/21/11 01:06 AM; and 431260, 3/21/11 01:31 AM. These are good posts.

So tell me John, did you get the content to those posts in vision, dream or completely from your own expirence without any influence from professors from our colleges? These are (with the exception of the Methodist Jim Fleming) the same group where I got my ideas from. Like I said, some were fundamentalists, such as the Seminary professors who later formend and joined the Adventist Theological Society, but even they were liberal fundamentalists; and others did not feel free to join the ATS and considered themselves as non-fundamentalists.

2. As to the 1, 2, or 12 FAITHFUL spys is a lot different than asking if there were 1, 2 or 12 spys. Since you asked me where did I get the 1, 2 or 12 spys when all the texts point out 12 spys. I got this information in different Spirit of Prophecy/Writings of Ellen G. White and presentations defending Mrs. White from the accusations of Walter Rea. They pointed out that while we have the story in Numbers 13 and 14, how we tend to read the facts that we know into every reference of the text instead of reading the texts carefully, then they would go through several texts and point out that some texts do not include Joshua among the spys, which would leave Caleb as the one faithful spy and Joshua the one faithful among the people who heard the spy's report. Other texts do have Joshua as one of the spys, with Joshua and Caleb giving the good report but the other spys saying that we can't get the land, thus we have 2 faithful spys and 10 unfaithful spys. Then we have Deuteronomy where we do not have the 10 spys saying that we can't go up, but all 12 say that it is a good land that the Lord is giving us, but the people turn against the spys. All the stories agree with 12 spys going into the land and spying out the land. There were many other contradictions that these professors would bring up as well, some (not the above) were brought up in the debates with Walter Rea, to which Rea's comment were "Don't tear down my Bible to defend Ellen White" and the reply is "You can not demand us to accept certan facts about Ellen White and blind your eyes to the same types of facts in the Bible."

3. Reading your posts on the spys and Luke vs. Mark, do not find your arguments convincing, but to me it sounds like you are trying to tap dance over these differences and expalin away the texts to make the facts dissappear.

[Gerr]

Thanks for re-posting that, Gerry. I think what's there in terms of content is four things:

1. The claim that while there might be minor discrepancies due to human error, the Bible's message is consistent.

2. The acknowledgement of one of the points I was making - that the Bible is not infallible and is a human document.

Only half true, IMO. The Bible is a human/divine product. It was written by men, yes, but divinely inspired. That same mystery is found in the divine/human nature of Christ.

Quote:

3. What amounts to acknowledgement that many other doctrines have been set up as being predicated on creationism and would be in trouble without a literal recent creation.

In the same manner that if evolutionists accepted a young earth, the whole theory falls apart.

Quote:

Your insistence that SDAs don't regard the Bible as infallible is probably true in terms of doctrine, but not in terms of practice. In particular, any suggestion that some single verse or concept in the Bible may be in error is routinely greeted with howls of outrage here. So while lip service may be given to the fallible, human-created nature of the Bible as a general thing, in no specific example will it be operationalised in practice.

You have a point there. Some apparently have the idea that if the Bible is erroneous on any point, then it is unreliable.

Quote:

As to the broader issue of real contradictions rather than simple inconsistencies in detail matters like the number of soldiers in an army, it's only necessary to look around this forum a very little bit.

My recollection of the discrepancies in the number of soldiers have to do with the difficulty of translating the Hebrew. That is why one translation may have many thousands more or less than another translation or discrepancies even in the parallel accounts like Kings and Chronicles. This has nothing to do with the message of the Bible.

Quote:

I could go on giving examples, but let's start with those two: Does God kill? and Does God love everyone, all the time? Remember, the point is not to argue for a particular view on these questions, but to argue that the Bible's teachings are absolutely consistent and uncontradictory in relation to these matters.

There is no question that the Bible definitely says that God brought on the Flood that annihilated the antediluvians. And that at the end of time, He will annihilate the wicked including Satan and His angels. The confusion comes when the Bible also shows that God himself portrays Him as doing something that He allows. Satan is also portrayed as the destroyer. Both concepts are Biblically true, IMO. I would have to jump through more hopes to take the position that God kills no one at all. So I take the position that , yes, there are times when God as the Judge finally intervenes andterminates wickedness along with the wicked, but that most of the destruction in which someone is behind it, I believe is done by the enemy of God and man.

Yes, I believe that God loves even Satan, but hates his rebellion. I believe God himself will weep when Satan and all the wicked hosts are being destroyed. God is love, but He is also a just Judge.

[ClubV12]

I thank God for the spirit of prophecy as evidenced in His servant Ellen White.

Much of the bible simply cannot be understood or reconciled without the writings of EGW. Without EGW, you are left to beat upon the rocks of confusion. When I come across an apparent discrepancy in the bible, my first thought is, "What does EGW have to say about that?" If you insist on using the bible and the bible alone to make your case, on various issues, you are doomed to failure!! FIRST, you have to gain the insights and knowledge that God has provided through EGW to know what passage's and text's to lay out for your claim(s). This is fundamentally why so many different christian faiths arrive at so many different conclusions, it's because THEY don't a prophet among them.

Take the phrase, "I will harden Pharohs heart." EGW makes the case simple, God worked no miracle to harden pharohs heart, it was the natural outcome of a man who would not be humbled before God.

Many apparent bible contradictions can be readily and quickly resolved the same way, through EGW writings.

[Igakusei]

I thank God for the spirit of prophecy as evidenced in His servant Ellen White.

Much of the bible simply cannot be understood or reconciled without the writings of EGW. Without EGW, you are left to beat upon the rocks of confusion. When I come across an apparent discrepancy in the bible, my first thought is, "What does EGW have to say about that?" If you insist on using the bible and the bible alone to make your case, on various issues, you are doomed to failure!! FIRST, you have to gain the insights and knowledge that God has provided through EGW to know what passage's and text's to lay out for your claim(s). This is fundamentally why so many different christian faiths arrive at so many different conclusions, it's because THEY don't a prophet among them.

Take the phrase, "I will harden Pharohs heart." EGW makes the case simple, God worked no miracle to harden pharohs heart, it was the natural outcome of a man who would not be humbled before God.

Many apparent bible contradictions can be readily and quickly resolved the same way, through EGW writings.

I doubt that even the majority of SDA pastors would agree with you on this one.

[ClubV12]

It is an obvious truth, any SDA pastor that would fail to acknowledge THIS truth is not working God, but the devil.

The SDA church was founded on the end of the 2,300 year prophecy. Name ONE other person, besides EGW, that was able to explain what that ending meant?

There is no one on earth that could, or did. The understanding, and the message, is unique to SDA's.

The link between Daniel and Elle White is secure, she started her work where his work left off. It is a serious mistake to question her validity as a prophet of God, in the continuing line of prophets. Sure you CAN doubt it, but it remains a serious mistake.

[CoAspen]

Quote:

Much of the bible simply cannot be understood or reconciled without the writings of EGW. Without EGW, you are left to beat upon the rocks of confusion. When I come across an apparent discrepancy in the bible, my first thought is, "What does EGW have to say about that?" If you insist on using the bible and the bible alone to make your case, on various issues, you are doomed to failure!! FIRST, you have to gain the insights and knowledge that God has provided through EGW to know what passage's and text's to lay out for your claim(s).

There in lies your problem. Your desire, opposed by EGW herself, is to rely on an other human, just like the prophets in the Bible, and not the Holy Spirit. You have disavowed that source of knlowledge and layed everything at the feet of EGW. You have raised her above the Bible, which you will deny, by saying the Bible can not be understood with out her. None of what you believe is taught by the SDA church or endorsed by the church.

[CoAspen]

Quote:

It is an obvious truth, any SDA pastor that would fail to acknowledge THIS truth is not working God, but the devil.

A very sad statement you are making about yourself...

[ClubV12]

Was it Daniel that delivered his message? Of course not, ALL prophets speak as they are moved by the Holy Spirit, another obvious truth.

[SivartM]

The SDA church was founded on the end of the 2,300 year prophecy. Name ONE other person, besides EGW, that was able to explain what that ending meant?

[Gail]

The SDA church was founded on the end of the 2,300 year prophecy. Name ONE other person, besides EGW, that was able to explain what that ending meant?

William Miller was getting there. He was not present when the group stood upon Ascension rock. He stayed inside his home, believing that there was more to the prophecy than what information they had thus far.

[ClubV12]

Miller, on his own accord, never connected the 1844 end date with the sanctuary. Harmon's vision of October 1844 revealed to him the concept of the sanctuary, but his conclusions contained errors. EGW's subsequent visions on the subject, like her December 1844 vision, corrected these errors and further clarified the subject. It was EGW's visions and clairifications on the issue that laid the foundation of the SDA church. After EGW and Harmon met and discussed the issues, he became an SDA.

Could God have used someone other than EGW to deliver His message? Certainly, but she was the chosen vessel. Just like Daniel was the chosen vessel in his time. No doubt many questioned Daniel as well, and would pick and choose what they thought were "personal opinion" vs inspired testimony. Such a path, questioning Gods chosen vessel, is a dangerous path, be careful, do not treat God's prophets lightly.

And yes, ANYONE, living BEFORE the end of the 2,300 days had limited understanding of the bible. Martin Luther, for instance, did not consider the book of Revelation worthy of inclusion in the bible. He later changed that view point, but it stands as an example of his limited knowledge.

[Sonny]

The only real question is, do people have enough confidence in God to let Him be God? Or do they judge God like they would a human being, by man's standards and rules, and call God a "killer" or "murderer"?

No, not human standards, agape standards:

1 Cor 13:4 Love [agape] is patient and is kind; love doesn't envy. Love doesn't brag, is not proud, 5 doesn't behave itself inappropriately, doesn't seek its own way, is not provoked, takes no account of evil; 6 doesn't rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. 8 Love never fails

Agape, by definition, can't force itself on others. If God murders/kills those who don't agree with or reject Him, He is by definition forcing no matter how you slice it.

[ClubV12]

"Forcing",,, I'm OK with that, if thats what you want to call it. I don't call it that, but it's important that all have the freedom to make a choice as they see fit.

So, how would you deal with the problem of sin? Would you let it go on forever, or at some point, would you draw a line? Would you let the people continue to cry, or at some point, would you wipe every tear away and usher in a new era of perfect happiness? Just wondering what the alternative solutions might be.

Just to be clear: William Miller was a great man, led and used by God for an important work. As was Harmon, what a giant among men, truly blessed of God.

[Sonny]

"Forcing",,, I'm OK with that, if thats what you want to call it.

The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government; He desires only the service of love; and love cannot be commanded; it cannot be won by force or authority. Only by love is love awakened. [DA 22]