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

[John317]

OK we will give one more just to be certain:

ORIGINAL SOURCE

SERIES A, NO. 11, P 7 1897

“Let the son of deceit and false witness be

entertained by a church that has had great

light, great evidence, and that church will

discard the message the Lord has sent, and

receive the most unreasonable assertions and

false suppositions and false theories.” {SpTA11

7.2} (Pg 39)

NOTE: In this original account, Sr. White

predicted that if the son of deceit and false

witness (who is Satan himself) will be

entertained by a church which has been

blessed with great light (i.e. the SDA church)

that church will discard the message the Lord

has sent them, and will be left to receive

heresy for religious truth.

CHANGED ACCOUNT

TESTIMONIES TO MINISTERS, P 409

1962 EDITION

“Let the sin of deceit and false witness be

entertained by a church that has had great

light, great evidence, and that church will

discard the message the Lord has sent, and

receive the most unreasonable assertions and

false suppositions and false theories.”

NOTE: In this changed account, one letter

has been changed, and thus the impersonal

“sin of deceit” will be entertained by the SDA

church. This account does not sound as bad

as the original account, which predicted that

the “sOn of deceit”—Satan himself, would be

entertained by the SDA church.

Such a change is extremely significant and makes all the difference in the World!

Are you sure?

In my 1962 edition of TM,page 409, it reads "son," not "sin."

Here is how it reads in the CD-ROM:

Quote:

Unsanctified ministers are arraying themselves against God. They are praising Christ and the god of this world in the same breath. While professedly they receive Christ, they embrace Barabbas, and by their actions say, "Not this Man, but Barabbas." Let all who read these lines, take heed. Satan has made his boast of what he can do. He thinks to dissolve the unity which Christ prayed might exist in His church. He says, "I will go forth and be a lying spirit to deceive those that I can, to criticize, and condemn, and falsify." Let the son of deceit and false witness be entertained by a church that has had great light, great evidence, and that church will discard the message the Lord has sent, and receive the most unreasonable assertions and false suppositions and false theories. Satan laughs at their folly, for he knows what truth is. {TM 409.2}

Many will stand in our pulpits with the torch of false prophecy in their hands, kindled from the hellish

410

torch of Satan. If doubts and unbelief are cherished, the faithful ministers will be removed from the people who think they know so much. "If thou hadst known," said Christ, "even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes."

Based on this evidence, what would any reasonable person conclude?

It is most likely that if someone's copy of TM reads "sin," they have a misprint or typo.

Conclusion: do you have any better evidence than this that people have changed Ellen White's writings?

What's amazing is that at the top of your post, you said you were presenting this evidence "just to be certain." But this evidence is no evidence at all except of a misprint or typo. That would be funny if it wasn't part of such a serious acccusation against the church and against many good people.

[John317]

Did you not read the post about the "son of deception" and the "sin of deception"?

Testimonies to Ministers was compiled after her death.

Did or did not the "brethren" make those changes after her death?

Even though the change is "one letter", that one letter makes a big difference.

Did you or did you not read that example?

Yes, I ceraintly did, and it turns out to be a typo or misprint. Check out the post immediately before this one.

It pays to do research before you make these kinds of charges and accusations. Is that the kind of stuff you depend on to make your accusations against the church and against Ellen White's books that God helped her to write?

Hey, are you SDA? :-)

[John317]

I did show you a change that was made after her death.

OK, the other evidence you've posted has been without foundation. Maybe this "change" will be legit. If not, your accusation will be proved to be nothing but hot air.

I'll study it carefully and then be back to post a comment here. :-)

ONE HOUR LATER: Yep-- hot air.

It was really nothing. Just an unnamed 1946 compilation that evidently did not use all of a section of the 9th volume of the Testimonies For the Church. I don't think any compilation ever uses all of an article or chapter. That is what a compilation is. But they all give the original source so the reader can check it out.

By the way, what was the name of that compilation?

Do you have anything better to show to prove your accusation that brethren in the church changed Ellen White's writings?

[John317]

ORIGINAL SOURCE

9 TESTIMONY, P 28, 29 1909

..... NOTE: We have marked for the reader with the

[Color parts] in the original published

account, what has been omitted, in the later

1946 compiled account of Sr. White’s vision.

In this 1909 account, two maps were shown to

Sr. White, relating to the spreading of God’s

light/truth in the world. On the first map, Sr.

White saw jets of light shining in many places

on the globe, and in obedience to God’s word,

God’s truth was proclaimed throughout the

world. This map was removed, and a second

map took its place. On this map, light was

only shining from a few places, with the rest of

the world in darkness. This second map is the

reality concerning the spread of God’s truth

in the world; while the first map was what

might have been, had Seventh-day

Adventists followed God’s counsel. The reality

according to the Heavenly Instructor is, that

God’s work is years behind!

My note: In the interest of honesty: I miz3 color coded what the source emphasized by different symbols than the blue color I inserted. The words are not changed in the Ellen White parts but are only highlighted in blue to show what was left out of the compilation made AFTER ELLEN WHITES DEATH.

What compilation? What is the name of the book? My copy of the Testimonies For the Church reads exactly the way it is supposed to, without a single word changed.

Thanks for your note "in the interest of honesty."

By the way, when they make compilations, the editors aren't obligated to print the entire article. But they do tell you what the source is so you can read it if you want to.

But again, what is the title of the compilation? Why didn't you mention it? Do you know what it is?

[John317]

Did you not read the post about the "son of deception" and the "sin of deception"?

...Even though the change is "one letter", that one letter makes a big difference.

Did you or did you not read that example?

Well, yes, I did, as a matter of fact. But it's not the kind of change you thought it was. It's nothing but a typo or misprint. Like I said before, my copy (1946) of the Testimonies To Ministers has "son of deceit." [it is NOT "sin".] And it is also how the CD-ROM reads. I see no attempt to change Mrs. White's writings.

Do you still maintain that this is an example of how the "brethren" or the SDA church has changed her writings?

[John317]

You went ballistic and threatened my posts unless I fessed up.

Actually, I think it might be best to leave your accusation on the forum here for people to see. It is a good example of how empty such accusations prove to be once a person starts examining them.

I didn't go ballistics but I did tell you honestly and forthrightly that people who make those kinds of charges must realize they need to be able to prove their accusations if they're going to post them. Isn't that reasonable?

Otherwise the Adventist Forum becomes a punching bag for people who just want to come here and make groundless accusations and charges against the church and against Ellen White. Our friend, Stan, has put too much hard work into the Forum to allow it to be ruined that way. If you have facts to show, that is one thing, but don't post accusations against people or against the church unless you have solid evidence to make your case. Evidently you don't have that.

[John317]

Keep going.

I did, and I still didn't find anything except a typo where most copies of TM have "son" but evidently some copies have "sin." My copy of TM has "son" and so does the CD-ROM. That proves no one is trying to change Ellen White's writings.

Tomorrow, Thursday, I will call the Ellen White Estate and talk to them about this and about the unnamed 1946 compilation you mentioned.

[John317]

You have clear uncontroverted evidence that it was Ellen White and not some else who made the changes.

I think the evidence would satisfy reasonable people, yes.

For one thing, Ellen white was very careful to read her articles after they were published, in order to make sure they were printed the way she wanted them.

For another, she signed off on manuscripts before they went to the publisher, showing that she gave her final approval. (See page 102, section 94, of Robert Olson's book, "One Hundred and One Questions." It is to be found on the CD-ROM of Ellen White's Writings, under "Research Documents.")

There is other evidence, but this will suffice for the time being.

[miz3]

Wow!

You gave me explanations alright.

1. You wouldn't take the word of witnesses that something was tampered because they might have fudged. You say this even though they had the evidence.

2. You say having a "rubber stamp signature" is OK even though having such opens the person to such a strong temptation to slant things their way. For years Ellen White signed every thing now after the death of James White her son Willie has to have a "rubber stamp signature". How convenient! Poor James White didn't have enough consideration for his wife. Its a good thing that Willie White loved his mother enough to think of this for her convenience. Right? and there is bridge in Brooklyn for sale too!

3. We also gave clear testimony how Willie White withheld testimonies because he thought God's timing was not correct. Yet you brush this aside again with "how can I believe the evidence".

4. You then attribute a single letter change which is very significant because it changes the whole meaning of the passage "just a typo". For years and years this "typo" exists and nobody at the White Estate or anywhere else proofs it. Again, Right?

5. There is a whole slew of examples, I gave only a few, yet you brush them aside with one slippery excuse after another.

Your excuses could be made about anything. If I showed you a picture with "green" grass and you had vehemently always refused to believe the grass could ever be green what would you do? You would deny such by "how do I know you you didn't paint it?"; or "how do you know its not plastic painted green?"; or "how do I know you didn't photo shop it"? Etc. etc.

Anyone could make almost any excuse about anything depending on the intensity with which they hold their "prejudicial" view. In my opinion this is what you have done. I am not saying you are being dishonest, no, just intensely so prejudiced in your view so that it is impossible for you to accept any evidence with a clear unvarnished eye. You might accuse me of the same but it would not be true, in my view because I base my word on the Bible.

I gave you evidence and the opportunity to look at the "whole book". I have also asked questions that give you opportunity to see what the evidence is both "Biblical" and otherwise. I demonstrated from the Biblical Sources in the clearest tones and without ambiguity what the Bible supports and doesn't support. I got in return:

1. Reams of Ellen White quotes (which is not a sin) to support your view. An abuse of the Prophet and her words because you are using them as a club to destroy.

2. You say Ellen White is the "lesser light" but you use her as the starting "light". You don't use the "lesser" to define the "greater" yet that's the way you use SOP. Shining a lesser light on the greater light adds nothing.

3. You then "infer, twist, read into, conceptualize, etc. things into the Bible that are not anywhere in the text.

4. You then belittle my evidence as trivial and should be an example of such for all to see.

5. You state that SOP "interprets" the Bible. Who then is the lesser and who is the greater light? Of course reasonable people would say the interpreter is the greater light because it has to shine brighter. Duh! A lesser light cannot shine anything on the greater light. Get your lights correct. You also brush this aside.

6. I show you evidence from SDA "official" documents, the Church Manuel and the 27/28 Beliefs, with no Biblical backing at all for these "SDA UNIQUE" Doctrines. You could reasonably expect at least two or three clear direct texts. But none exists.

You have one excuse after another. Usually, such excuse making is done because one does not want to face up to the truth and because one is so wedded to their view that nothing can move them. In addition such excuse making is done when one has such flimsy positions as it appears SDA do.

You question me about where and who I am. Then you accuse me being Des Ford to paint me as some "Satanic" minion like you believe Des Ford is.

It should not matter who I am. You only want to know so you can use that as a weapon against me to. No matter who I am the facts are the facts and you lack them and are found wanting. Yet you pretend that I have no case when in fact I have presented a very strong and devastating case (especially from the Bible) that SDA Doctine is not Bible and Bible only! Yet you lie and dissemble both in voice and in print (official and unofficial) that your Doctrines are Bible and Bible only! Come be honest! If Ellen White started the Doctrine than it is not the Bible and the Bible only, is it? If you are reasonable and honest you would have say "no, SDA have NOT been Bible and Bible ONLY". If such a Doctrine was started by the Bible then and only then would you have a case. But by your own admission the Doctrine did not start with the Bible, in fact, without Ellen White it is IMPOSSIBLE TO SHOW THE SANCTUARY DOCTRINE AND THE INVESTIGATIVE FROM THE BIBLE!

Again, who I am is not relevant. The only thing relevant is the Truth! The Truth is found in God's Word, the Bible.

You quote to me "to the Law and the Testimony". The Law and the Testimony are found in the Bible yet you hold Doctrines that you state are "vital" yet again they are no where found Scripture. You have Revelation which you correctly believe tells us of things to come. Yet in this Book alone there is no mention, not even the slightest inference, of the SDA Church and its supposed dominant role in the History of Human kind. There is not even the slightest evidence that Revelation refers to Ellen White, yet you pluck a "phrase" out of the blue and say that such phrase is referring to Ellen White. Talk about "flimsy" evidence. Your use of the Bible in this way is the "definition" of flimsy evidence. It insults the human intelligence. It is also SACRILEGIOUS and BLASPHEMOUS.

You state that Revelation chapter 13 is a reference to the United States in Prophecy. Yet it does not even in the slightest say so. Oh, I know the two horns. Well those "two horns" could just as easily be attributed to Islam today since they paint themselves as lamb but they speak and act like a dragon. The passage applies more to Islam than the United States. It also could have applied to the old Soviet Union. Could it also apply to the current communist state of China? How flimsy you are on this one point alone yet you ridicule my evidence. Man is that "rich". Clean your own religious skirt first.

SDA arrogance is and has been very telling. You make excuses for why Christ is in the Most Holy Place for 167 years by stating the Church is not ready. When I see the SDA Church (and I have from the very core), I see the most rotten of garbage in the way SDA conduct their business. Dishonesty and the grab for power is rampant throughout. It is not the picture SDA would like us to believe, which is that most SDA are ready but it is a small minority that are holding up the train. Your leadership from the local church to the GC touts how you prayerfully go over everything and let the Lord lead. Yet your backroom politics has already decided what direction you are going and who will hold power. You PROFANE THE NAME OF GOD BY ASSERTING SUCH! I am not talking about a scandal here and there, I am talking about this disease and sin running through every fiber of Adventism from top to bottom and side to side. Yet you claim to be so highly chosen (even though you are not mentioned in the least in Scripture). God wrote Scripture in the formation of the Jewish people. God did not slink around with ambiguous symbols as to who His people were. God came right out in the open that the Jews were His people.

Why does God use ambiguous (highly ambiguous) symbols and slink around in the secret in the SDA case? Symbols that could apply to almost anyone or anything. The reason is God did not announce the SDA people in the Bible. Your arrogance is stunning. Hmmmm!

You talk about MY evidence being flimsy. The Bible is right when it states you build you house on the sand.

Your very words on this website; "SDA is built on God and the Sanctuary". Its not God alone or Jesus Christ alone. No its Jesus Christ and the Sanctuary. To read SDA stuff you would get the picture that the "Sanctuary" is ahead of Jesus Christ in importance. In addition one would easily gets the impression that the SDA Church is more important than Jesus Christ. You state that the Sanctuary is the fundamental pillar of SDA. I thought the fundamental pillar is supposed to be Jesus Christ and Him Crucified?

The fundamental problem of SDA is their self-arrogance and the Sanctuary Doctrine as you have devised is proof of this. The Sanctuary Doctrine is you IDOL! You have made the Gospel about you (SDA) instead of about Jesus Christ. In your scenario Jesus Christ may be a major player but He is not the center, you have made yourselves the center.

It is time for the SDA Church to shun its arrogant posture and return again to the God which spawned you, not by prophetic utterances, but by working in people to learn the light of the Sabbath when such a Doctrine was in danger of being lost. God raised SDA up to lead the world to better health when the world was dieing because it had so many unhealthful practices. God did not raise SDA up to promote a flimsy Doctrine that can't be supported from the Bible. A Doctrine that does not make Christ the center and everything else but a Doctrine that makes SDA the center.

SDA are not unique because they hold the Sanctuary Doctrine. God's people are never unique because of the Doctrines they hold.

God's people are unique because God is in them ("your body is the temple of God"). Thus, the TRUE SANCTUARY MESSAGE is for God to be in His Holy Temple (us humans). Only those who have God as the High Priest of their lives will be saved. That is the TRUE SANCTUARY MESSAGE!

SDA have missed it because of your arrogance and your reliance on non Biblical Doctrines. You no longer (assuming you once did) rely on God and on Jesus Christ your ONLY Savior!

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: miz3

Besides I thought the SDA Church's FOUNDATION was Jesus Christ NOT THE SANCTUARY DOCTRINE OR THE INVESTIGATIVE JUDGMENT! Was I wrong?

No, you are right. Since Christ is our High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary, and since all that is done in the heavenly sanctuary is Christ, there is no contradiction in saying that the Church's FOUNDATION is both Christ and the Sanctuary.

"The merits of a crucified and risen Saviour are the foundation of the Christian's faith." S.C.36

But Daniel 8:14 is the foundation and central pillar of the advent faith. (G.C.409)

There is a difference.

sky

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

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.

I said "it may be" not "it is"

What I meant to say was that even if it were the officical position,, it would not make it the truth.

However, as you know, in secret meetings with the Evangelicals in the 1950s the leaders repudiated that position.

sky

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: miz3

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)

Thank you for that John.

I agree.

sky :)

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: ClubV12

Sonny, do you also reject what Ellen White has to say on this subject in favor of the "new light" miz3 offers on the matter?

Here's what I have on Ellen White concerning new light:

We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and heaven alone are infallible. Those who think that they will never have to give up a cherished view, never have occasion to change an opinion, will be disappointed. [CW 37]

“A spirit of pharisaism has been coming in upon the people who claim to believe the truth for these last days. They are self-satisfied. They have said, ‘We have the truth. There is no more light for the people of God.’ But we are not safe when we take a position that we will not accept anything else than that upon which we have settled as truth. We should take the Bible, and investigate it closely for ourselves. We should dig in the mine of God's word for truth. ‘Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart.’ Some have asked me if I thought there was any more light for the people of God. Our minds have become so narrow that we do not seem to understand that the Lord has a mighty work to do for us. Increasing light is to shine upon us; for ‘the path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day.’ --Review and Herald, June 18, 1889. CW 34, 35

The new light will not contradict the old. Those who today teach that there is no such thing as an investigative judgment beginning at the end of the 2,300 day prophecy are not bringing new light but they are rejecting the old or they have not yet understood it.

sky

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: miz3

You went ballistic and threatened my posts unless I fessed up.

Actually, I think it might be best to leave your accusation on the forum here for people to see. It is a good example of how empty such accusations prove to be once a person starts examining them.

I didn't go ballistics but I did tell you honestly and forthrightly that people who make those kinds of charges must realize they need to be able to prove their accusations if they're going to post them. Isn't that reasonable?

Otherwise the Adventist Forum becomes a punching bag for people who just want to come here and make groundless accusations and charges against the church and against Ellen White. Our friend, Stan, has put too much hard work into the Forum to allow it to be ruined that way. If you have facts to show, that is one thing, but don't post accusations against people or against the church unless you have solid evidence to make your case. Evidently you don't have that.

John, the truth has nothing to fear. It can stand the test of investigation.

sky

[skyblue888]

5. You state that SOP "interprets" the Bible. Who then is the lesser and who is the greater light? Of course reasonable people would say the interpreter is the greater light because it has to shine brighter. Duh! A lesser light cannot shine anything on the greater light. Get your lights correct. You also brush this aside.

miz3

______________

Duh!!!!

Miz3, this cannot come from the Spirit of Christ!

sky

[miz3]

What I said is true!

You just are so blinded by you idolatry to your Doctrine and your idolatry to the SDA Church that you can see no other way.

If not for Ellen White you would never get the:

1. Doctrine of the Sanctuary.

2. That Christ entered the Most Holy Place in 1844. (Hiram Edson deserves the main credit).

3. That an Investigative Judgment exists.

4. That the SDA Church is prophesied in Revelation.

5. That the United States is the two horned beast of Revelation chapter 13.

6. That Ellen White is foretold in the Book of Revelation.

7. That the SDA Church is the "last day" church. (Given the 167 years and 6 or 7 generations of last days). How many generations have to die off before it is the last. For Ellen White and the Founders it is not the last generation. Their generation has come and gone. How many generations before we get to to the last?.

None of the seven things above can be demonstrated from the Bible and the Bible only! How can so many things be true and yet not be explicit from the Bible. How can they not be explicit from the Bible and be as vitally important as say they are?

That's an awful lot of "new light" that is not backed up by the "old light"(the Bible).

That's an awful lot of "lesser light" that is not seen in the "greater light"(the Bible).

How can you with a straight face assert what you do and call it credible. Most reasonable humans would clearly be skeptical of your take on things because of, at minimum, the seven things I have posed above.

How many "inferred" things are there in order to make it "explicit". You talk about weak ground. Brother you are on the weakest of grounds.

You certainly are not on the Rock which is Jesus Christ and His Word (the Bible).

[Gail]

My goodness- the true colours ARE coming out!

[phkrause]

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

Ain't that the truth, and there are least two or three here on CA. I'm surprised that you haven't noticed?

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: miz3

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

Ain't that the truth, and there are least two or three here on CA. I'm surprised that you haven't noticed?

It would be impossible NOT to notice pk.

[miz3]

Thank you Woody,

I am here for now. I am not going anywhere. I have gone through this before.

Others are indeed "free" to disagree with me and are free to have their opinion about my evidence. However, I am also free to have a different opinion.

Like you admonished me before (and correctly I might add) you don't always get the answer you want but you do hopefully get an answer.

I only want us SDA to look at ourselves and be honest, in my opinion, about what we do, what we believe, where we get our views, test our views constantly to be sure they are indeed right, and change if need be and not too proud to admit we have been wrong in the past (hopefully we have been honestly wrong and not evilly wrong). I want SDA to be Truthful about the "source" of our beliefs whether we need to change or not change.

Again, thanks Woody and back to again as you kindly did to me.

[John317]

In reference to post #437967, please post your messages so the reader can clearly distinguish between your response and the previous poster's message.

Use the "quick quote" etc.

[John317]

John, the truth has nothing to fear. It can stand the test of investigation.

Yes, I know this.

I am not talking about investigation. Everyone should truly and sincerely investigate. I am talking here about people who simply throw out accusations and claims without providing evidence to support those accusations. It becomes no more gossip and the spreading of rumors.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: miz3

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

Ain't that the truth, and there are least two or three here on CA. I'm surprised that you haven't noticed?

That's exactly why it's important to consider all that the Bible says on a topic, and the same principle applies to the writings of Ellen White. Study ALL she says on the subject of the sanctuary, for instance. The problems arise when people don't do this.

[John317]

You gave me explanations alright.

I'd like to know your response to the posts I wrote in reply to your posts. For instance, what is your response to post#437897? That is the post I wrote about your allegation regarding the word "son" being changed to "sin" in TM 409.

My edition of TM is 1962. It was first published in 1923.

My edition (burgundy color)and the edition on the CD-ROM reads, "son of deceit."

I would like to know if your personal copy (if you have one) reads "sin of deceit." What edition is it?

I just got off the phone to the ABC in Loma Linda, and the clerk told me that the copy of TM they pulled off the shelf at their store reads, "son of deceit."

All of this would clearly indicate that any copies reading "sin of deceit" is an error in the printing and not a deliberate attempt to deceive anyone.

[John317]

My goodness- the true colours ARE coming out!

Indeed they are, Gail.

Could you please tell how your personal copy of TM 409 reads-- whether "sin of deceit" or "son of deceit"? It is in paragraph 2, about 2/3 of the way down.

If you are working at the book store where you have access to TM, how do those copies read?