What is the Spirit of Prophecy?

[John317]

I agree, Kevin. The Spirit of prophecy also applies to Isaiah, Moses, John the Baptist, and yes, to Ellen White as wwell. It's the Holy Spirit that inspires the prophets to speak forth for God.

1 Cor. 1:6

even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed among you—

1 Cor. 12:28-31

And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. [29] Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? [30] Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? [31] But earnestly desire the higher gifts.

NOTE: The Corinthian church had the Spirit of prophecy among it. That is, the Holy Spirit spoke through a prophet or prophets among the Corinthian believers.

It would be the same way among the Remnant that is spoken of in Rev. 12: 17 and 14: 12.

I don't believe there is valid evidence of a true prophet between the time of John (95 AD) and Dec. of 1844 when Ellen Harmon received her first vision from God.

[Dr. Rich]

True prophets never edited or changed the words they got from God. Many didn't even understand the prophecy because it was for a future generation.

In 1st Cor. 12, Paul has God setting forth the rules for different duties and 'gifts' for appointing their 'jobs', but this can't be confirmed nor verfied by the words of Jesus Christ Himself. If Jesus was to confirm what Paul said and wrote He could have done that with the prophecy(s) in the book of Revelation, but He didn't.

On the otherhand, EGW not only edits the vision or prophecy, she attempts to tell us that we too must believe the same thing as what she said and wrote. Man, can you just see Moses coming down from the mountain with the commandments and then changing them to be more politically correct?

The Spirit of Prophecy is NOT EGW's words, they are the words of Jesus Christ given to us by His eyewitnesses. Rev. 19:10

[Kevin H]

Dr. Rich, that is not true. Bible translators going back to Jerome have comeplained about how difficut it is to translate due to obvious editing (which is why Jerome called the prophets God's penmen not his pen in disagreement with Augustines view that they were God's pen) Also we have David and Nathan. When David was asking Nathan about the temple it was not a off the cuff comment at the watercooler. David did not know if it would be ok to build the temple, and he asked Nathan, as the Lord's Messenger if it was alright to build the temple and Nathan replied in his full role as a prophet and more than a prophet.

And we find that the Nathan prophecy is actually 3 parts with the last two edited together with schlors arguing that there is evidence that the thrid part came was some years later. First was a yes, then a No, and then a your son can do it.

In short, from his position as a prophet he did not see it objectional to build a temple. However many in David's kingdom had been converted from worshiping Baal, and Baal was worshiped in temples, so it would have been a temptation to them to think that they were worshiping Baal again, but as the next generation was coming up then it would have been ok to build a temple.

Translators complain about all the editing that Neimiah did, and the rotten job Neimiah did in his editing his work.

Scholars point out that the Book of Revelation is an editing together of popular plays of John's time and Rabinic writings that ended up in the Mishnah.

Also, while there were later and even deeper applications of the text that the prophet did not know about, each and every passage has a local application. Even Daniel 8 was given in the same year that included 2300 literal days from the Behshazzar's feast and the fall of Babylon.

[miz3]

OK. Dr. Rich its your turn to respond.

[Kevin H]

can you just see Moses coming down from the mountain with the commandments and then changing them to be more politically correct?

Actually it is interesting that you should say this, as there are texts referencing to Moses bringing 10 words, and it appears that Exodus 20, Deutronomy 5 and a few other lists in the Bible that we don't notice on superficial readings especially if we don't know Hebrew, but all seem to be different editings of the same 10 words, and thus we have Moses coming with 10 words from God that had been edited in different ways in different chapters.

[Dr. Rich]

Kevin H wrote: "Scholars point out that the Book of Revelation is an editing together of popular plays of John's time and Rabinic writings that ended up in the Mishnah."

I respectfully object to the opinions of the so called Scholars, as all of them in the past are long dead and the understanding of Revelation was not give to them. Read Rev. 1:1 carefully and you will note that Jesus ONLY gave this to John to write it down so that the Bond Servants living in the last generation would know and understand. It is NOT meant to be understood by anyone who is sinful and wicked. (Dan. 12:10).

Revelation is ONE prophecy that you can 'take to the bank' since no one before understood it enough to change anything. And of course the propheies in Daniel can't be understood by anyone earlier than the last generation too, and especially not by anyone who is wicked. One MUST have special insight to be able to understand.

But the full understanding will be known and taught by the ONE person found in Matthew 24:45 as prophesied by Jesus in Matthew 17:11.

By the way, Prophecy is not the same thing as prediction. God actually KNOWS what is going to happen, He does not guess.

[John317]

True prophets never edited or changed the words they got from God.

You don't know this. You've never seen their original writing. The Scriptures were not dictated by God. God showed them things in vision, and the prophets wrote it in their own langauge, guided by the Holy Spirit.

The book of Jeremiah was largely put together by Jeremiah's secretary, Baruch.

[ClubV12]

Paul was nearly blind, I've often wondered how he monitored, controlled, edited what he dictated to others to write?

[miz3]

I find it interesting that we have two major views of Inspiration.

One view: God dictated every word through the Holy Spirit.

View Two: God gave them the info. They wrote it down in their style using their chosen words to convey the message from God aided by the Holy Spirit.

John317 is correct about one thing. We have NOT seen the original writings or autographs. We have only copies of what they wrote. Thus if changes were made we would never know it.

The fact is no one knows for sure how God's Inspiration works mechanically. Is it View One or is it View Two, or is it something else? No one knows. The Truth is we are speculating because God has not told in detail how it works.

We do know that the Bible is the Word of God and contains His Word to us. For us to know this Truth it requires the Holy Spirit to be in us so that we will know what God is saying just as the Holy Spirit was in the writers. Without the Holy Spirit the sent message makes no sense and without the Holy Spirit the received message makes no sense. This how contradictions arise while studying the Word of God.

[John317]

Read Rev. 1:1 carefully and you will note that Jesus ONLY gave this to John to write it down so that the Bond Servants living in the last generation would know and understand. It is NOT meant to be understood by anyone who is sinful and wicked. (Dan. 12:10).

You're misinterpreting Rev. 1: 1. It says nothing about the "last generation."

Rev. 1:1

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

NOTE: The events foretold in Revelation would begin to come to pass even in John's day, and God obviously had the book sent to the Christian congregations for them to read. And if God wanted them to read it, He must also have wanted them to understand it.

You say that the book of Revelation was not intended by God to be understood by anyone sinful. Is this true?

Are you sinful?

I confess I am.

I assume you are, too, and that all of your friends are also sinful. If you believe no one sinful can understand it, how can you make the claim to understand it?

[John317]

John317 is correct about one thing. We have seen the original writings or autographs.

No, I said we have NOT seen the original writings.

I assume you made a typo, but I wanted to make sure I'm not misunderstood about this.

We simply do not know for sure exactly how the writing processes took place. We do know that some of the writers dictated their books to a secretary, and the secretary's job was to edit and otherwise get the piece of writing ready for publication. In other words, the secretary was a stylist and he had the authority to change grammar and sentence structure, but he couldn't change the substance or significance of the original writing.

[ClubV12]

Miz3 says,

"One view: God dictated every word through the Holy Spirit.

View Two: God gave them the info."

Both views are correct.

EGW put in "quotes" words that were specifically given or spoken to her by a heavenly messenger. Other times, like all the prophets, she wrote out what was revealed to her as best she could. She didn't always understand what was revealed to her. You could say she wrote some things out so that others might be able to offer more clairity on the subject. In other cases, clairity was brought to her at a later date.

Like Daniel and the messages he was receiving, were at times so difficult to grasp he feinted! After resting, the messenger would return to help Daniel understand what he had seen.

John, in Revelation, wrote out what he saw, but I doubt that he fully understood what he saw or what he was writing about.

[John317]

I find it interesting that we have two major views of Inspiration.

One view: God dictated every word through the Holy Spirit.

View Two: God gave them the info. They wrote it down in their style using their chosen words to convey the message from God aided by the Holy Spirit.

I don't know that Dr. Rich believes the Bible was dictated word for word. If he does, I would be surprised. But he obviously does not believe that prophets ever had to make any changes in their writings. I'm not sure if Dr. Rich means they never had to change anything in the first draft and that it was perfect the first time-- or whether he means that a prophet never felt the need of revising or adding or substracting anything once something was published. Doubtless Dr. Rich takes that position becasue he does not accept Ellen White as a true prophet. And he no doubt feels one way to prove it is to point out that Ellen White made changes in her writing, something that no genuine prophet of God ever would have done. of course, that is all conjecture and guess-work at best. I won't say what it is at worst. :-)

[miz3]

John317 you are correct I did make a typo. As soon as I realized it I made an edit to correct it. It should be correct now.

Since we do not have the originals or autographs we can never for sure know whether any editing or rewriting went on or not. We do not know how many if any rewrites were done at all.

One thing I know for sure Dr. Rich or anyone else does not know one way or the other whether the Bible Prophets edited, rewrote, or did anything else in the production of the Bible Record. God is and was in control of the process whatever it was. God is also in control of the process today.

No one can claim to know anything about the process let alone be an expert on how Inspiration works.

[John317]

Paul was nearly blind, I've often wondered how he monitored, controlled, edited what he dictated to others to write?

One simple way would be for him to have had his letter read back to him after it was finished. It is also likely that he wasn't so "blind" that he couldn't read the Scriptures at all, so he probably could see enough to read, but it was no doubt a struggle for him. In one epistle, he wrote that he made big letters, so he probably couldn't see letters that were written in a normal size. All this may help explain why Paul depended so much on helpers, such as Dr. Luke and Mark, and why he wrote of how much he missed various people who had been with him.

[wayfinder]

Please show me evidence that Paul was nearly blind. Paul does not say he was blind or had poor eyesight. People assume that it stemed from his blindness after his epiphany on the road to Damascus, but there is not one shread of evidence to prove this assumption.

[nuff sed]

Maybe Paul's thorn in the flesh was his mother-in law.. Nuff sed

[miz3]

Funny but weak!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Bible never says nary a word about what the "thorn" was!

[wayfinder]

2 Corinthians 12:7 NAS

[A Thorn in the Flesh] Because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, for this reason, to keep me from exalting myself, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me-to keep me from exalting myself! 8 Concerning this I implored the Lord three times that it might leave me.

9 And He has said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness." Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me.

According to Paul it was a messenger of Satan, that would make his thorn a demon. Paul never says it is poor or failing eyesight, but that would be much more acceptable than to think that God sent Paul a demon to keep him from boasting. Why would a demon keep Paul from boasting? I think it would encourage him to boast. According to Paul this messenger of Satan is the power of Christ. And Paul boasts about his weaknesses, I think not.

[ClubV12]

It is generally accepted that Paul was "hard of seeing". It is also generally accepted that Paul dictated much of what he had to say. Coincidence? Perhaps.

It was common in those days for a scribe to paraphrase what was dictated to them, thus some editing of the final document(s) would be a reasonable assumption.

There are a number of bible books that are disputed as to Pauls authorship. Nearly half of the books attributed to Paul fall into this class for various reasons. Personally, I've wondered if the reason is because of different scribes taking the dictation used different styles in paraphrasing what Paul was saying?

In other words, you could make a case against Pauls authorship similar to a case you might make against EGW's writings. Editing and word smithing, by associates in the process of producing a finished document, but the final product always subject to approval by the primary author (Paul or EGW as the case may be).

I have no reason to doubt either EGW or Paul's writings when it comes to their message. Be it a letter to an individual, or a group of believers.

[wayfinder]

2 Thessalonians 3:17 NAS

I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand, and this is a distinguishing mark in every letter ; this is the way I write

So Paul writes "with my own hand" and it is the distinguishing mark in every one of his letters. Paul wanted his converts to know which letter was from him, and which was not and they could do so by noting his distinguishing mark. Every one of Paul's letters contains his greeting and that he is the one who is writting it, this is why the book of Hebrews could not have been written by Paul, it does not contain his greeting or identify him as writting it. Paul claims to be a Pharisee and as such would have been able to read and write.

[John317]

... God sent Paul a demon to keep him from boasting. Why would a demon keep Paul from boasting? I think it would encourage him to boast. According to Paul this messenger of Satan is the power of Christ. And Paul boasts about his weaknesses, I think not.

You think this way about it because you evidently believe that Paul is telling his readers God sent him a literal demon. Why do you believe this?

Paul is not saying the messenger of Satan is the power of Christ.

Before I write about what Paul is saying, I would like you to tell more about what you think Paul means in this passage.

[John317]

Funny but weak!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Bible never says nary a word about what the "thorn" was!

Do you agree with Wayfinder's explanation? If not, how would you explain what happened? What is Paul talking about?

[ClubV12]

"I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand, and this is a distinguishing mark in every letter ;"

My interpretation on the above is Paul always included at least a portion of a document in his own hand, beginning or ending, to verify the document. To prevent forgery perhaps, while the bulk of his writing was "paraphrased" by scribes writing on his behalf.

Interesting take on the book of Hebrews Wayfinder.

[miz3]

"To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations, there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. 8 Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. 9 But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. 10 That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong." 2Corinthians 12:7-10.

Paul says that God sent Paul a thorn in the flesh which was a "messenger of Satan" to torment Paul. Paul asks God three times to remove the "thorn" and the torment. God says, "NO!". Why does God say "no"? God says "no" because God wants Paul to depend on Him for everything. Paul had reason to become conceited because as Paul says God gave him some great revelations. Paul might become conceited and think that he was better than others in the eyes of God. In fact God states that Paul's weakness is actually a chance for God to display His great Glory.

What was this weakness? Paul does not tell us!!!!!! He does however say that this weakness is aggravated by this messenger from Satan. Paul also tells us that God will give sufficient power to not sin in regard to this "thorn". It seems pretty straight forward to me.