Where in the Bible is the term "Investigative Judgment"?

[skyblue888]

It may be the official position but it is not the truth.

sky

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

"Most Holy Place" is an incorrect translation of Heb. 10: 19-21.

The Greek word is "ton hagion," which is best translated as "sanctuary." It may also be translated as "holies," or "the holy places," another name for the sanctuary as a whole. "Ton hagion" is always translated as "the sanctuary" in the LXX, never as "the Most Holy Place."

The Greek for "the Most Holy Place" is found in Hebrews 9: 8, and is written hagia hagion.

SDA Commentary uses ta Hagia& and translates the passage as Holiest and says that this refers to the Most Holy Place.

Please quote exactly what the SDA Commentary says. You will find that it says no such thing as what you claim.

The commentary on Heb. 10: 19 merely refers the reader to the comments on Heb. 8: 2 and 9: 8.

At Heb. 8: 2, the commentary says, "Gr. ta hagia, literally, 'the holies,' or 'the holy [places].' The feminine hai hagiai is most unlikely here (see on ch. 9:2). Scholars quite uniformly hold that the Greek form is a neuter plural. There are differences of opinion as to the force and function of the plural in this instance. Some believe that the plural designates two apartments in the heavenly sanctuary corresponding to the two apartments in the earthly. Others believe that the plural is an intensive plural denoting simply the concentration of holy things in the sanctuary." (See the rest of the comments on page 444.)

See also comments in the SDA BC at Hebrews 9: 2, 3, and 8.

On Hebrews 9: 8, the SDA BC says,

Quote:

Gr. ta hagi, "the holies," or "the holy [places]" (see on chs. 8: 2; 9: 24, 25). The context makes clear that ta hagi here refers to that "greater and more perfect tabernacle," not made with hands" (ch. 9: 11), that is, the heavenly sanctuary ((cf. vs. 24, 25).

True, the translators of the KJV rendered ta hagia "holiest of all." But it does not follow that they had in mind the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary. It is doubtful that they held any detailed views concerning that sanctuary. They apparently thought of the heavenly sanctuary, or of "heaven itself," where Jesus went (v. 24), as the holiest palce of all, corresponding to teh most holy place in the earthly sanctuary. However, it should be remembered that the meaning of the passage must be decided not by an English translation but by the Greek, with careful attention being given to grammar and syntax."

M.L. Andreasen wrote the commentary on the book of the Hebrews in the SDA Bible Commentary. He also wrote a commentary entitled, The book of Hebrews. Consult his comments in that book, pages 325-328. (On a separate post, I will quote these pages in Andreasen's book.)

Also, please examine closely Appendix A, entitled, Ta Hagi in the Epistle to the Hebrews, in Issues In the Book of Hebrews, volume 4 of the Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, edited by Frank B. Holbrook.

Originally Posted By: miz3

...My friend did you not notice the SDA Church's own Bible Commentary states the it is the "Most Holy Place". That means that it is the "official" SDA position!

It does not say this. Give the quote and the page number.

In the above, I've quoted its comments on Heb. 9: 8 as well as on Heb. 10: 19.

While I do highly resepect and give due consideration to the position of the SDA Commentary, it is not true that the SDA Bible Commentary gives the official SDA position. The SDA Bible Commentary itself makes no such claim and in fact categorically denies it.

The SDA Commentary says, "As the name implies, this Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary seeks to give expression to the general viewpoint of Adventists on matters of Scripture. However, it makes no claim to having frozen in type the ultimate of Adventist thinking on any passages of Holy Writ. We claim only to have made a most earnest endeavor to present the consensus of Adventist thinking on the Bible." (Page 10 of Volume 7) (1957 edition).

Also: "This commentary is published with no thought of presenting a creed or of determining for all time the denominational interpretation of any passage of Scripture. Neither the contributors nor the editors possess either the power or the desire to do so. Let this fact be clearly understood at the outset." (Vol. 1, page 18)

[miz3]

So, let me get this straight when John317 and others point to what SDA believe and tell me that this is where they and the Church stand, that they and the Church are standing on

LIES!?

Yet we have wrangled all this time and we find that the SDA Church is wrong so we can say that our Doctrine of the Investigative Judgment can stand.

We fly in the face of clear facts and state that they are wrong just so we can hold onto a nonBiblical Doctrine. A Doctrine that began, NOT IN THE BIBLE, but began with SOP, and then we have to bend, twist, infer, conceptualize, etc. in order to get the Bible to agree. This is why we say that the SDA Bible Commentary that the GC in prayerful session ratified (as the highest spiritual body on earth) as Official Church position is "NOW WRONG".

Come on people get real! Have you no credibility at all?

No wonder the world laughs at us!

We can do better can't we?

[miz3]

We sound like the Popes who dual each other as to who is really the voice of God.

Aren't you SDA embarrassed?

[Daryl]

What do you mean by saying that Ellen White's writings were tampered?

Thank you Sonny!

RIGHT ON! RIGHT ON!

SDA so often quote Ellen White to support their view and leave off other quotes that don't support their view.

Part of that problem is because the "brethren" have tampered with Ellen White's stuff in order to support their views and their ambitions.

Such a thing makes it hard to "trust" what you are reading.

[John317]

It may be the official position but it is not the truth.

sky

It is not the official position.

The SDA Commentary does not say what miz3 is claiming it says .

Look it up for yourself in the SDA Commentary.

Besides, the SDA Commentary does not give the "official position" of the SDA church. It states this on page 18 of volume 1. The editors and authors of the commentary did not have either the authority or the wish to do this.

[miz3]

Daryl,

It is a known and documented fact that the "Brethren" have tampered and changed SOP to suit there desires.

SDA don't like this and so have attacked those who have truthfully pointed these things as being the tools of

SATAN!

You either line up or you are "excommunicated" just the Catholic Popes of old did for hundreds of years.

The SDA Church has a hard time with scrutiny!

[miz3]

One of the ways SDA currently discredits you is to say:

"That's the position of Des Ford" as if Des Ford is and has been proven wrong in all his positions. They do this to put you off and retreat from your position even if you have never even heard of Des Ford or anything he has said.

Like the Jews of Jesus' day, you either line up or you are the "synagogue of Satan"!

Very heavy handed.

[John317]

Daryl,

It is a known and documented fact that the "Brethren" have tampered and changed SOP to suit there desires.

Please give the proof of this.

Writing as the moderator:

Miz3, if you cannot prove this statement by references and quotes on this discussion, your post will be deleted.

[John317]

The SDA Church has a hard time with scrutiny!

If you don't produce the proof for what you are saying, your posts will be deleted.

[John317]

What do you mean by saying that Ellen White's writings were tampered?

Good question.

With moderator's hat:

If miz3 cannot prove her allegation, her posts will be deleted.

Most Forums that I know of ban people who deliberately give false information.

[John317]

One of the ways SDA currently discredits you is to say:

"That's the position of Des Ford" as if Des Ford is and has been proven wrong in all his positions. They do this to put you off and retreat from your position even if you have never even heard of Des Ford or anything he has said.

Not all of Des Ford's positions have been proven wrong, of course. Des Ford holds many correct positions. However, many of the things he taught against the Investigative Judgment have been shown to be untrue or invalid. (One of Des Ford's ideas that have been proven to be untrue is Ford's idea that Antiochus IV is the little -horn power of Daniel 7. In fact, Des Ford's very excellent commentary on Daniel (published 1978) proves unquestionably that his current views on Antiochus IV are false.)

A number of books contain the evidence of this, including Bradley Williams' book, The Silencing of Satan and Marvin Moore's book, The Case for the Investigative Judgment. See also Goldstein's book, Graffiti In the Sanctuary.

But if someone claiming to be SDA or former SDA takes the positions that Des Ford has taken, there is nothing wrong with being honest about it and stating that the person is in agreement with Ford.

[miz3]

Here it is:

Enjoy reading it.

http://www.testimonypress.org/web_documents/reviving_the_original_writings.pdf

[John317]

You need to show in your own words, from references and quotes, that the church has changed Ellen White's writings. If there is evidence of this, we should not have to study an entire link to find the proof.

Can you do this?

All I am asking for is a few examples. You will need to quote and give the references.

[John317]

We sound like the Popes who dual each other as to who is really the voice of God.

Aren't you SDA embarrassed?

Maybe that is how you see this, but I don't. I am asking you for evidence of your allegations that the church has changed Ellen White's writings. You gave a link to someone's book, but what I am asking you for is your own evidence, in your own words. I don't want to have to read an entire book to find it. If it is there, you should be able to come up with it rather quickly and easily.

Also I am asking for proof that the SDA BC says ta hagia in the book of Hebrews refers to the Most Holy Place. Give the quote and the page number or tell the verse the comment is about. I have read all the comments in the SDA BC on Hebrews and I do not see where it says ta hagia in Hebrews 9 and 10 refers to the Most Holy Place.

What is there to be embarrassed about? I see nothing to be embarrassed about in talking about these things.

Are you a Seventh-day Adventist? I've asked this a number of times but have not yet seen your answer. Maybe you gave an answer but I haven't seen it yet.

[miz3]

Yet you give me a book by Williams and that's it. I am supposed to read to get the Church's position.

However, I am supposed to give examples or face deletion even though I gave the place where you can pick for yourself what references you want.

My, my! So this is the SDA character?

OK, here is one:

"Ellen G. White—Periodical Resource

Collection, Vol. 2 p. 481: “Some criticism has

been bade because letters are sent out with a

rubber-stamp signature. We feel that it is not

necessary to ask mother to sign several

copies. It is her custom to sign the original

copy, and our workers claim that it is their

right to keep this signed copy on file in our

office, so that if any body should challenge its

authenticity, we have on file the copy signed

with her own hand. The other copies are

usually stamped with a rubber stamp.” (By

W.C. White 1913)

NOTE: Willie did not say that his mother

approved of this process; but that the office

workers claimed this right for themselves.

Thus, this practice opened the door for

“Document Tampering” by the “brethren”. The

practice of using the rubber-stamp signature

of Sr. White’s name on “Testimonies” sent out,

is contrary to the Biblical example of the

Apostle Paul, who signed every one of his

letters, with his own hand. See

2 Thessalonians 3:17 & Chapter 2 p 14, (Original

book paging) on this point."

[miz3]

Here's a second:

This brings us to consider Willie White’s

role in changing the Spirit of Prophecy books.

Firstly, we already know that Willie White was

appointed to the Committee of five, to change

the “Testimonies” of the Holy Spirit, in 1883.

(See Chapter 3 p. 21 (Original book paging) on this

point) And secondly, we will briefly consider,

what was Willie’s mindset relating to the

triumph of the Seventh-day Adventist

organization, and the “Testimonies” of the

Holy Spirit.

Spalding—Magan Collection, pp. 466, 467,

470: “As a body of Seventh-day Adventists, we

believe that this church will stand until

Christ comes…. For years I have felt that it

was my privilege to do all I could to draw

Mother’s attention to the most cheerful

features of our work, to the many hopeful

experiences in our institutions and

conferences. I reasoned that as the Lord has

chosen Mother to be His messenger for the

correcting of wrongs in the church, opening

up to her the dangers, the mistakes, the

errors, and the weaknesses and the

wickedness of men, and as these revelations

burden her heart almost to death, therefore it

can not be wrong for me to gather up all the

words of cheer, and all the good news that

will comfort her heart, and every incident

that will show the power of Christ working

in the church, and that will make manifest

the best side of the workings of men who

are bearing heavy burdens in the work of

the Lord; therefore I will endeavor to bring

to her attention the bright side of things.

When a brother speaks well of what (Pg 36)

Another brother is doing, I will try to bring it

to her attention. The criticisms and the

accusations that are made by brother against

brother, I must try to keep to my self.” (By

W.C. White 1905)

NOTE: Willie’s mindset was “The Church is

going through into Christ’s Kingdom”; and

“Let’s be positive”! He started doing this,

straight after his father’s death, by keeping

disagreeable things concerning the Battle

Creek Church, from his mother.

Testimony for the Battle Creek Church 1882

p. 20: “To spare my feelings, Willie has

withheld from me disagreeable particulars

concerning matters at Battle Creek.”

NOTE: This has been omitted from the present

edition of 5 th Testimony, p. 45.

[miz3]

Here's a third:

But more than this, Willie was quite

capable of working directly contrary to his

mother’s “Testimonies”.

Some History, Experience, and Facts, pp. 17,

18: “Sister White says that in the time of the

General Conference of 1905, at Takoma Park,

Washington, she was shown in the night the

needs of the South and that 5,000 dollars

must be given immediately to the brethren

Buttler and Haskell—for it. So plain was this

and so urgent, that she said to Brother

Haskell the next morning: “Have faith in God.

You will carry 5,000 dollars from this meeting

for the work in the South.” Then the

Testimony proceeds. But Willie said that

Brother Daniells was very much perplexed

with the conditions in Battle Creek, and

the money could not be sent just then. And

I said no more about it. This Testimony you

have there in Washington. Now, did she see,

that night, as she says that she did, the needs

of the South, and so urgent that 5,000 dollars

should be carried from that very meeting for

it? If she did, then how much loyalty to the

Testimonies was there in Willie, setting it

all aside so effectually that for full two

months nothing at all was done in that

direction and when after full two months

something was done, it was only because

Testimonies were sent to the South as well as

to Washington that would brook no more

delay. And one of these said: “This matter has

been presented to me three times, and I was

instructed that 5,000 dollars ought to have

been placed in Elder Haskell’s hands before he

left the Conference grounds.” That is exactly

the instruction that she says that she had on

the conference grounds, in the time of the

Conference. She gave the instructions at least

to Brother Haskell and to Willie, but Willie

simply and promptly set it aside.” (By A.T.

Jones 1906)

The truthfulness of A.T. Jones’ statement

above is established by the following

Testimony from Sr. White, concerning the

$5,000 to go to the Southern Field.

Spalding-Magan Collection, p. 378: “The

Question was asked, “Has the full amount of

the Washington Fund been raised?” The

answer was “Yes, it has, and several thousand

dollars’ overflow has come in.” A prayer and

praise service was held. After the meeting, a

piece of paper was placed in the hands of

Elder Haskell. Unfolding it, he read, “This is to

signify that we deem it to be the wise and

Christian part to act toward our brethren in

Nashville to place the first five thousand

dollars’ surplus that has come in to

Washington, in the hands of these faithful

servants of God, that they may secure the

house of worship in Nashville, which they

greatly need. We deem that it is but loving our

neighbor as ourselves to make this transfer of

means to a place where at this time there is so

great a necessity.” {SpM 378.1}

“After seeing this representation, I awoke,

and I fully expected that the matter would

take place as it had been presented to me.

When Elder Haskell was telling me of the

perplexity that they were in to carry

forward the Southern work, I said, “Have

faith in God. You will carry from this

meeting the five thousand dollars needed

for the purchase of the church.” {SpM

378.2}

“I wrote a few lines to Elder Daniells,

suggesting that this be done. BUT WILLIE DID

NOT SEE THAT THE MATTER COULD BE CARRIED

THROUGH THUS, BECAUSE ELDER DANIELLS AND

OTHERS WERE AT THAT TIME VERY MUCH

DISCOURAGED IN REGARD TO THE CONDITION OF

THINGS IN BATTLE CREEK. So I told him that

he need not deliver the note.” {SpM 378.3}

“But I could not rest. I was disturbed,

and could not find peace of mind. I was

instructed that I had a message to bear to

our leading brethren, to Elder Daniells,

Elder Prescott, Elder Washburn, and Elder

Evans. I was instructed that I must present

before them the self-denying labors of Elders

Haskell and Butler, and say, “Beware what

impress you leave upon the minds of these

tried servants of God, whose influence is of

the highest value. They have known the truth

from the earliest period of our work, and have

ever sacrificed for the truth’s sake.” {SpM

378.4}

[miz3]

There's more:

The following quotation is from a 14 page

letter written by Elder W.W. Sadler to Sr.

White, dated April 26, 1906 in which he states

the following concerning W.C. White’s refusal

to pass on to Professor W.W. Prescott a

Testimony from Sr. White, forbidding Prescott

to continue to publicly attack pantheism and

Dr. Kellogg at the Berrien Springs Council

meeting in 1904. Willie did NOT pass on to

Prescott this Testimony, and therefore

Prescott’s public attacks continued at that

meeting, bringing in further disunity.

“Another matter that has bothered me

since it happened, although it did not at the

time, is that during the Conference at Berrien

Springs, when Prof. Prescott was preaching

against Pantheism, you sent for Dr. Paulson

and me one morning, to come and see you;

and during our conversation you presented to

us many things that had been shown to you

during that night, and gave us to carry away a

copy of a letter addressed to Bro. Prescott,

forbidding them to make these public attacks,

etc. We read this, and supposed the matter

would stop, but that evening and the

following, things continued as they were and

when the matter developed further, it

appeared that you had given the Testimony

to Willie to give to Bro. Prescott, but that

he had failed to do so, as he publicly stated

before the Conference, thinking that the

purpose of the Lord would be getter served

by his withholding it, and allowing matters

to proceed as they were.” (W.W. Sadler to

Mrs. E.G. White; April 26, 1906, page 7)

[miz3]

Yet more:

Arthur White’s biography of his

grandmother also admits that Willie (who was

Arthur’ White’s father) did NOT share this

Testimony with Prescott, who went ahead and

continued to make his public attacks on Dr.

Kellogg in a sermon he gave on the Friday

night meeting at that Council Session.

(Pg 37)

The Early Elmshaven Years, By Arthur L.

White, p. 335: “W. C. White came under

criticism, even from his own brother Edson,

who was in sympathy with Dr. Kellogg. He

intimated that Willie influenced his mother in

some of the things she did and said. W. C.

White did not deliver to certain men

present a message his mother had placed in

his hands for him to deliver.” {5BIO 335.2}

[miz3]

DEVASTATING AIN'T IT!

[miz3]

Yet more!

“This Day with God” foreword; p 8: “In three or

four instances, paragraphs have been

rearranged so that the selection ends on a

positive tone.” (By the Trustees of the Ellen

G. White Estate – 1979)

[miz3]

Rearranged!

Who are to rearrange what God has put in the order He wanted?

Hmmmmmmmmm!

Do you condone these actions and these tamperings?

[miz3]

In the following statement from Sr. White’s

peen, she could not explain how an article

which she had written for the “Youth’s

Instructor”, was changed from what she had

originally written.

Spalding-Magan Collection, p. 81: “Sister

Davis has just called my attention to an article

printed in the Youth’s Instructor of May 31,

1894. The question asked is, Did I design to

have this sentence just as it appeared in the

Instructor? I am surprised to see it just as it

appears — “A meat diet is not the most

wholesome of diets, and yet I would take the

position that meat should not be discarded by

everyone.” I can not explain why this

appears just as it does. Since the

campmeeting at Brighton I have absolutely

banished meat from my table. It is an

understood thing that whether I am at home

or abroad, nothing of this kind is to be used

by my family, or come upon my table. I have

had some representations before my mind in

the night season on this subject that I feel

that I have done right in banishing meat from

my table. I would desire that the sentence

should be modified by changing the “not” —

“Yet I would not take the position that meat be

wholly discarded by everyone.”—” {SpM 81.1}

An article published in one of the SDA

church’s journals, bearing Sr. White’s name,

was not written by her at all; but was written

by an SDA minister, 13 years before it

appeared under Sr. White’s name.

More on the minister and 13 years next post.

Is this enough evidence or do you want more?

Again, DEVASTATING AIN'T IT!

[miz3]

An Appeal for Evangelical Christianity p. 3:

“The last three pages of my leaflet Final Word

are composed of a reprint of an article from

the Southern Watchman of May 1, 1906,

entitled Religious Liberty, by Mrs. E.G. White.

I now know that this article was never

written by Mrs. White: not a word of it.

That article was written by Elder George

Fifield, in 1893; and was first printed with his

name to it. Next it was printed with only his

initials; Later it was printed without either his

name or initials; and then somebody picked

it up and put Mrs. E.G. White’s name to it,

and thus it was printed in the Religious

Liberty number of the Southern Watchman,

May 1, 1906. I did not know any of these

facts when the article appeared in the

Watchman, as I had never before seen it; and

so I accepted it as it was printed—as “by Mrs.

E.G. White.” But now that I know that not a

word of it was written by her, it is due to all

who have read the article as printed in my

leaflet, that I should make this correction.” (By

A.T. Jones—1909)