Does Harold Camping remind you of 1844?

[cardw]

However, you are wrong as to whether God was indeed in the formation of the SDA Church. Like Israel of old the "first generation" failed because of lack of Faith and Trust in God.

[teresaq]

Awesome post, Qinael. I agree with you.

Bobryan, who I rarely read because of his "spirit" has me thinking in this area, tho. It seems to me that we, he SDA church has missed excellent opportunites to use his interpretations for studies for the community. Not the current prophecy seminars we currently have but mini ones designed to counter his false interpretations.

For instance, we could have one on the trumpets sequence and meaning which contains the "5-months" Mr. Campings has misapplied to May 21st. Then we could follow up with those who had further interest in studying the prophecies.

The "hook" would be presenting the "5 months" as a study which would start with the first trumpet. There could be other mini studies presented by the church-individual churches-regarding other misrepresentations by Mr. Camping. There would be no need to directly contradict the gentlemen, just make the presentation of the truth as we understand it.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

However, you are wrong as to whether God was indeed in the formation of the SDA Church. Like Israel of old the "first generation" failed because of lack of Faith and Trust in God.

So since they failed I guess we can't trust anything the 1st generation wrote?

Originally Posted By: miz3

However the Truth lies clearly within SDA Church but they are so blind they do not see it or appreciate the great Gift God has been please to give them.

How can the truth lie within the SDA church when the 1st generation didn't get it right. They are the source of the written material in regards to that truth.

Originally Posted By: miz3

Like the Jews of old in Christ's day many will violently oppose my words but that opposition does nothing to change the Truth of what I say.

So your words are the truth today?

1. You are twisting what I wrote. I said God gave them the Truth but they were stubborn like Israel and tried to go in a different direction. That does not mean that everything they did or wrote is wrong anymore than Israel did everything wrong.

2. The same way Paul says the Truth lay in Israel even though the "first" generation blew it. The Principle is clear.

3. As to my "words" I do not claim to be a Prophet or in any way shape or form claim "inspiration" as if it were Scripture. However, having said that it does not automatically, as you are trying to imply, that I therefore am wrong.

One does not have to be a Prophet or Scripturaly inspired in order to be correct or right in their assessment.

Good try though!

[cardw]

1. You are twisting what I wrote. I said God gave them the Truth but they were stubborn like Israel and tried to go in a different direction. That does not mean that everything they did or wrote is wrong anymore than Israel did everything wrong.

[miz3]

It has nothing to do with twisting your words. It's an oxymoron. If a source is flawed then YOU have to determine what is true and what is false. The source can't do that. It's a logical impossibility for true to come from false.

This is the logical result of your statements. It basically leaves you as the arbiter of truth. Because if any part of a statement is false the whole statement is false. This is a basic logical fact.

It appears the oxymoron shoe is on your foot, because Paul said the Jews had the Truth while the Jewish first generation was ALL DESTROYED FOR LACK OF FAITH, except for Caleb and Joshua. All I did was apply that same PRINCIPLE to the SDA Church and their first generation.

No OXYMORON here!

Unless you think Paul was wrong. Do you think Paul was wrong, cardw?

[cardw]

It appears the oxymoron shoe is on your foot, because Paul said the Jews had the Truth while the Jewish first generation was ALL DESTROYED FOR LACK OF FAITH, except for Caleb and Joshua. All I did was apply that same PRINCIPLE to the SDA Church and their first generation.

No OXYMORON here!

Unless you think Paul was wrong. Do you think Paul was wrong, cardw?

Whether Paul is right or wrong has nothing to do with it. In this case you are arguing from authority and a loose connection YOU are making with Paul's statement and Seventh-Day Adventists. Obviously Paul does not mention SDA's by name, so YOU are making that connection.

It is also obvious that you have no idea what oxymoron means.

It does not change the fact that it only takes one part of a statement to be false to make the the whole statement false.

You cannot get a true statement from a false source. That is logically impossible. So you are not debating me, but trying to refute the most basic of all logical principles.

[phkrause]

In response to the OP...

In some regards it does, and in some regards it does not remind me of 1844.

Where it does not remind me:

1844 was not a date randomly generated or arrived at via secret or obscure means. It was arrived at via a prophetic timeline that in every other instance, events happened precisely as expected.

Scripture is plain that something was to happen in 1844 to constitute "the cleansing of the sanctuary" as Daniel records it. This is not an argument about SDAs being dishonest or making up prophecies; it's an issue of Biblical prophecy and nothing else. In that regard, the Millerites and the Campingites (?) are a world apart.

Where it does remind me:

Regardless of the means of arriving at the conclusion, SDAs did indeed go through a "Great Disappointment" where we expected Christ to return. He did not return.

Those following Camping are currently undergoing the same experience. In that regard, it does indeed remind me of our earlier experiences. And for that reason, I find it especially hurtful and sad when Adventists of all people lash out and mock those who are currently undergoing exactly where we were 160 years ago, saying the same things that the mockers said to us at that time.

I have great sympathy for those people - not in spite of my belief that they are severely misled, but because of my belief that they are severely misled. I further have great empathy for those people. "I'm right, you're wrong" has no place in the equation. They are undergoing a disappointment, and I think we all ought to be sensitive to that.

I agree with all you wrote except if I'm not mistaken, William Miller was not an Adventist and the Adventist Church was not yet formed????

[doug yowell]

Harold Camping 2011 reminds me of Harold Camping 1994 not William Miller 1844.

[BobRyan]

You could almost say that Harold Camping took the pages right out of the Early Adventist/Millerite playbook.

The early Adventists were wrong about Oct 22, 1884 and deflected by saying that Jesus entered the Most Holy Place. This was something that couldn't be verified because it was claimed to occur in heaven. How convenient...

[miz3]

cardw,

Paul states the Principle and the Principle also applies to the SDA Church. You many not want it to apply to SDA but it is nonetheless applicable.

The Jews had the Truth and the first generation is false.

The SDA Church has the Truth and the first generation is false.

In both cases "false" still had the Truth.

If you trash one you must therefore trash the other.

Sorry but your logic is the one that is messed up. You are applying a principle of logic that does not apply in both the Paul circumstance and the SDA circumstance.

[ClubV12]

I'm curious miz3, in many different threads and again in this one you dispute the Seventh-day Adventist view of Christ moving from the Holy to the most Holy Place in 1844. If I understand your logic here it is because you reject the SDA interpretation of certain bible verses they use to support that position. In fact calling such interpretation "contorted."

So my question is rather simple.

What do you think happened in October 1844? I don't mean to open a big can of worms with this question and go off on a rant about why and how come and all that, as the various reasons for your position have been laid out many times in many threads. But I think I missed the part that expressed your view on what DID happen.

Just a simple direct question, What happened in October, 1844, in your opinion?

By the way, speaking of oxymorons, I find it quite confusing that on one hand a person can believe in the inspired nature of Ellen White's work and yet on the other hand, reject her most fundamental counsel as it concerns 1844! Just an observation...

[cardw]

cardw,

Paul states the Principle and the Principle also applies to the SDA Church. You many not want it to apply to SDA but it is nonetheless applicable.

The Jews had the Truth and the first generation is false.

The SDA Church has the Truth and the first generation is false.

In both cases "false" still had the Truth.

If you trash one you must therefore trash the other.

[ClubV12]

"In the case of early Adventists, we have their own admission that they were mistaken about the date."

I don't think thats entirely accurate, or more to the point it's misleading. There is a difference between the public reaction, ie "early Adventists" as you call them, and those bible scholars heavily involved in the process of understanding the prophecy from the early 1840's.

1843 is in fact a reasonable date, they didn't get it "wrong" per se. They needed to understand the partial year principle of the first and the last year equaling one entire extra year. Over the span of a 2,300 year prophecy missing a few months on either end is some impressive math in and of itself! Adding in those lost months we arrive at 1844.

Now the "popular opinion" of the whole deal was something they could not control, that took on a life of it's own! People wanted to believe what they wanted to believe. And when 1843 and 1844 passed there was plenty of "bible students, falsely so called" (don't ya love that term) to set whatever "date" might appease the popular opinion. All logic and reason was lost after October 1844 and wild speculation set in.

Not all "early Adventists" bought into the public hype on this issue and the ever changing date theory. 1843-1844 were solid in prophecy, nothing else was.

[miz3]

cardw,

Do you believe in the Bible at all?

[BobRyan]

We still insist hat the Oct 22, 1844 date was correct - but the event was not what we anticipated. Camping claims the same thing about May 21, 2011.

But in Camping's case he takes a 7 day week in Gen 6 and 7 for the flood and "imagines" that this dictates that the world would be destroyed in the 7000'th year, then imagines that we are now in that year.

in Christ,

Bob

[cardw]

cardw

Do you believe in the Bible at all?

I believe the Bible is a product of ancient men's thinking and belief. Much of it has no basis in fact. It is full of superstition and fear along with a number of wisdom sayings that helped to form Western civilization.

[cardw]

"In the case of early Adventists, we have their own admission that they were mistaken about the date."

I don't think thats entirely accurate, or more to the point it's misleading. There is a difference between the public reaction, ie "early Adventists" as you call them, and those bible scholars heavily involved in the process of understanding the prophecy from the early 1840's.

[miz3]

cardw,

Since you don't believe the Bible to be God's inspired Word as do I, it would be pointless for me to use Paul as an Authority to make my point as I did.

Just what is your Authority for Truth, cardw? How do you know what's up?

[cardw]

cardw,

Since you don't believe the Bible to be God's inspired Word as do I, it would be pointless for me to use Paul as an Authority to make my point as I did.

Just what is your Authority for Truth, cardw? How do you know what's up?

Truth for me is the same as it is for everyone. One only has human reason as applied to the real world.

You simply skip a step and assume the Bible describes the real world without questioning it.

[miz3]

cardw,

If I read you correctly, cardw uses his own human reasoning skills to decide what the Truth is? Is that correct?

[cardw]

cardw,

If I read you correctly, cardw uses his own human reasoning skills to decide what the Truth is? Is that correct?

So what type of reasoning skills do you use other than human?

[miz3]

Cardw,

Although you may intend that to be a cute answer, I will take your answer as a simple "yes" to my question.

Since cardw's reasoning skills are the Authority of what is Truth is, what makes your reasoning skills better than mine if I also set my self up as an Authority as well?

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted By: miz3

cardw

Do you believe in the Bible at all?

I believe the Bible is a product of ancient men's thinking and belief. Much of it has no basis in fact. It is full of superstition and fear

Ok so -- agnostic? Atheist?

in Christ,

Bob

[cardw]

Cardw,

Although you may intend that to be a cute answer, I will take your answer as a simple "yes" to my question.

[cardw]

Ok so -- agnostic? Atheist?

in Christ,

Bob

agnostic