Life on other planets

[John317]

Speaking of the definition of "race"--

Here's the definition of "race" given in the 1828 dictionary, which are the definitions Ellen Harmon would have been familiar with:

Quote:

RACE, n. [L. radix and radius having the same original. This word coincides in origin with rod, ray, radiate, etc.]

1. The lineage of a family, or continued series of descendants from a parent who is called the stock. A race is the series of descendants indefinitely. Thus all mankind are called the race of Adam; the Israelites are of the race of Abraham and Jacob. Thus we speak of a race of kings, the race of Clovis or Charlemagne; a race of nobles, etc.

Hence the long race of Alban fathers come.

2. A generation; a family of descendants. A race of youthful and unhandled colts.

3. A particular breed; as a race of mules; a race of horses; a race of sheep.

Of such a race no matter who is king.

4. A root; as race-ginger, ginger in the root or not pulverized.

5. A particular strength or taste of wine; a kind of tartness.

NOTE: In definiton #1, the term "race" meant in 1827 essentailly the same as it does today, if you compare the above with a modern dictionary, such as the American Heritage Dictionary.

[Klapas]

God doesn't reveal to prophets the meaning of words as they will be defined after the death of the prophet. Prophets choose the words they will use from among the words common in their day based on the meaning those words have in their own time, not some other time.

Just like God revealed four moons on Jupiter, eight moons on Saturn and six moons on Uranus.

[John317]

Just like God revealed four moons on Jupiter, eight moons on Saturn and six moons on Uranus.

Must be your dislexia again. :-)

God never revealed how many moons those planets have.

Please quote your evidence here if you believe God revealed the number of moons there are around those planets.

Good thing you are coming to ClubAdventist where you can get the truth about these things. Not sure where you've been hanging out before, but whereever it was, you sure got hoodwinked in regard to Ellen White.

I have a feeling you've been reading too much on those anti-SDA and anti-EGW websites. They feed you garbage until you don't know which end's up-- know what I mean?

So again, who told you that God revealed four moons on Jupiter, etc.? Where're you getting this terrible information?

[Klapas]

It happened in 1846, in the house of Mr. Curtis, and in the presence of Elder (Captain) Bates.

Your spin is she never named these planets. It was just a coincidence that the planets she visited ( astral travel ) were identical to Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus. The only problem was that we now know that they have more moons then was first though.

If these were not Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus, why didnt she ever correct Elder Loughboroughs error on page 258 of his book, The Great Second Advent Movement?

[ClubV12]

Correct every person who ever misinterpreted Ellen White's writing?

Do that, and she wouldn't have had time to write!

In fact, that takes considerable band width on THIS site. There are many instances where she didn't bother to correct people. Sometimes, I think she was onto something, but that is a work (correcting) that seems to be left to others. She had her work, we have ours.

By the way, Bates made more than one mistake in misapplying what Sister White had to say. As smart as the man was, he did have a tendency to open mouth and insert foot.

[Gerr]

Wow I'm dizzy!

Who's on first?

That's what happens when you spin!

[Klapas]

Aye Abbot!

[Gerr]

Actually John317 you can take her quote either way. It depends on what your bias is going into the reading of the passage. Thus, Klapas can actually read it his way and be correct as you, John317 can read it your way and also be correct.

Thus, we have a case where both can be correct at the same time or either one is correct and the other is not, and visa versa.

Thus, unless Ellen White herself clarifies her remark we actually cannot know which of the alternatives is actually correct.

When there is ambiguity in a passage taken by itself, proper exegesis demands that one should then put that passage in the CONTEXT of that author's total work. We do the same with the Bible. For example, something that is not so clear in James like being justified by works may be clarified in Genesis or the Pauline epistles and vice versa. As John clearly made the point, there is NOT one shred of evidence in the other writings of EGW that shows a belief in a race of people that is partly human and partly beast. This charge of genetic amalgamation by copulation between mand and beast are looking for hooks to hang on their bogus charges to discredit her prophetic ministry. Pure and simple.

[Gerr]

Aye Abbot!

No, I'm not a monk, and my last name is Cabalo, not abbot! lol.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

I think the Church has made sooo many mistakes in regard to Ellen White because of their Church ego.

Klapas would doubtless say the same thing-- or at least in very similar words.

Question: Can you think of anything Klapas has said so far that you disagree with?

I never, ever said that I agree/disagree with Klapas on anything.

What I am telling you is that I would have handled his/her questions in a different manner. That is all.

It is certainly proper to disagree about tactics/strategy on how to handle things. I just disagree with your way of handling the situation. That does not mean that I agree/disagree with Klapas. It just says that I have some differences with you, John317 only on the process rather than the substance. There is a difference you know.

I am also allowed to have my own opinion on the tactics/strategy of the SDA Church and its handling of Ellen White. You are free to disagree which you have done.

Your tactic of trying to make me look bad by "association" is detestable. In my view a Christian would not use such tactics.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

Actually John317 you can take her quote either way. It depends on what your bias is going into the reading of the passage. Thus, Klapas can actually read it his way and be correct as you, John317 can read it your way and also be correct.

Thus, we have a case where both can be correct at the same time or either one is correct and the other is not, and visa versa.

Thus, unless Ellen White herself clarifies her remark we actually cannot know which of the alternatives is actually correct.

When there is ambiguity in a passage taken by itself, proper exegesis demands that one should then put that passage in the CONTEXT of that author's total work. We do the same with the Bible. For example, something that is not so clear in James like being justified by works may be clarified in Genesis or the Pauline epistles and vice versa. As John clearly made the point, there is NOT one shred of evidence in the other writings of EGW that shows a belief in a race of people that is partly human and partly beast. This charge of genetic amalgamation by copulation between mand and beast are looking for hooks to hang on their bogus charges to discredit her prophetic ministry. Pure and simple.

Wrong.

Ambiguity is ambiguity. That is plain and simple.

You cannot argue from omission. If we did that with everyone we would get an extremely distorted view of what everybody actually believes.

The FACT is Ellen White made an ambiguous statement and as such it remains ambiguous. End of story.

[ClubV12]

It's an Adventist web site, Ellen White referrences should be a given, without apology. I certainly won't hesitate to use her counsel where ever and when ever applicable on this forum.

When it comes to DOCTRINE, that can be shown from the bible alone and STILL people will argue with the interpretation and disagree. Do we then throw out the bible because we can't agree on it either?

It is a rare thing for anyone to study the bible, and the bible alone, without additional referrence manuals, books, authors, opinions from friends in seeking to understand it. In my opinion, it is FOOLISH to study the bible and the bible alone, like some Monk living in a cave! What was the history and culture of the time in what ever verse you are contemplating? What WAS it like in Pauls time? What WERE the customs? What DOES a commentary have to say about this or that verse? You ARE going to be referrencing somebodys book at some point.

So whats the problem with referrencing a book by yet another profound author? An acknowledged bible student who could hold her own with the best learned men of her time and I dare say today! A woman of extraordinary talent! An author unequaled in her accomplishments by any man or women living or dead!

Here's the problem: PREJUDICE, pure and simple.

Gerry says,

"When there is ambiguity in a passage taken by itself, proper exegesis demands that one should then put that passage in the CONTEXT of that author's total work."

Thanks for posting that Gerry, there is a LOT of wisdom in that. Thats basic bible study 101 in my opinion. Very dangerous to take one verse and separate it from the whole.

[Klapas]

As a matter of fact, Mrs. White herself, relating this vision, described Saturn as having only seven moons, the number then assigned to that planet by astronomers. Here are her own words in, "Early Writings," page 32: "Then I was taken to a world which had seven moons." But by the time Elder Loughborough had written his book, "Rise and Progress of Seventh-day Adventists," another moon had been discovered, and the publishers had the audacity to change her words to read, "I see eight moons." (See page 126 of that work.) This was in 1892. When Elder Loughborough revised this book in 1905.

No ambiguity here.

[ClubV12]

Where in that quote do you see her identifying any planet as "Saturn"? Show me ANY quote where she identifies ANY planet!

In this vision she said she saw A planet, with seven moons. Your speculating that was Saturn, obviously it was not.

As to the UNPROVEN ALLEGATION of Loughborough or Ellen White approving any change to eight moons, give a specific referrence, not some "internet rumor", we get plenty of those everyday.

Lets not leave out another planet she was shown that had six moons and the PEOPLE that lived there. What planet do you think that one would be?

"Actually, during the vision, wholly unbeknown to her, she spoke of what was passing before her. J. N. Loughborough recounted in print the description of the meeting as Bates told it to him:"

The Early Years, 1827-1862 (Vol. 1 113

THIRD hand knowledge at best.

Some have also speculated she identified both Uranus and Jupiter as well, SHE never named any planet herself.

[jasd]

>>C'mon. I thought you said these sinless aliens can not make contact with us sinners.

Dont you know that those who have undeniably had contact with aliens have at some stage in their live messed with occult? Any contact with aliens is actually demons or bad drugs.<<

What is the definition of “aliens”? Can an angel be defined as “alien”? Is Gd restricted from using any being as a messenger to man?

I’ve asked the above as Writ informs that sometimes we entertain angels unaware.

>>stuff that interests me, especially technology.<<

You might want to read the Bhagavad. It depicts not spirits per se but flesh and blood – even blue blood. Veracity?—sure, by a number of ways and means. I provided the one example of the effects of radiation poisoning, which is perfectly delineated in the Bhagavad.

Pyrmids: at the beginning of this computer age the Japanese stole a march on the rest of the world by manufacturing more perfect memory chips (a grid with a toroid at its intersecting lines to retain electrical energy sufficing as memory). It was necessary that the surface of the toroid be perfectly smooth – as energy would gravitate to the imperfections – and leak, nullifying its memory function.

Should one infuse electrical energy into a box, the energy would accumulate upon the edges and especially its corners – and leak. The earth is an electrical generator. The energy generated leaks from its surface imperfections (such as its mountains). Man, should he have been aware of this, would have been able to collect that energy; however, he chose mainly to live in the plains. No problem, build little mountains where he lived. Ipso... pyramids.

The civilization that built the American pyramids (those who actually created the ‘Aztec Calendar Stone’ preceded the Aztecs by at least three civilizations) did so somewhat differently from those who built the Giza pyramids (By the way, these pyramids are mentioned in Writ as existing before the flood). They ‘insulated’ each layer of stone with mica in their most famous pyramids. Not just any mica, but that found only in Brazil – 900 miles away. The logistics must have been problematic, but they nevertheless used Brazilian mica. Why? To what purpose?

Pyramids are found all over the world. Many, many of them. More than we are aware.

Remember the altar stones of Gilgal?—where the COI first crossed the Jordan... Gilgal means ‘stone circle’. A henge. A condenser. An energy collector. That is where, interestingly, Naman the Syrean was cured of his leprosy...

Have you ever wondered about the Henges, the artificial mounds, and Ley lines in the British Isles – or the pits lined with timber and stones, which stones are now fused – as though by tremendous energy/heat? (Definitely more than the heat of a Luau pit) The Isles were the last redoubt of Druidic science?—the same Druidic science that enabled the cause and the calm of storms with just a spoken word... (chaos theory?—or simple knowledge of frequencies and their effects?)

Tesla found a means to collect ‘free’ energy and to store and distribute it wirelessly. Hmm... Earth Magic. One wonders why he preferred to conduct his experiments in the Rocky Mountains... An interesting observation yields the fact that the Rockies extend almost pole to pole; the only mountain range in the world to do so.

Re: Writ and the groaning of creation... (that’s the entire creation, not just our -itty-bitty world). Wha’s happening? Was sin truly limited only to this planet? Doesn’t seem that its effects were. Satan, as adversary, may have influenced waayyy more than man and his earth-dwelling. Otherwise, it appears that Gd was rather clumsy re His creative abilities. [/respectfully]

Try Google-ing to see entire galaxies in collision. Were ours to collide with another, I’d hope that others of superior technology would evacuate us..., and plant us elsewhere. At least a pair – that our species would continue...

All is much larger and more complex than we imagine. And superior knowledge is found in the goshdarnedest places.

It's gratifying that we can be continuously surprised.

[jasd]

>>Very dangerous to take one verse and separate it from the whole.<<

Indeed; however, sometimes the "one verse" is the only verse - whilst at other times, it is all that is needed.

Example: Gen 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which [is] in the midst of the garden...

[Gerr]

Wrong.

Ambiguity is ambiguity. That is plain and simple.

You cannot argue from omission. If we did that with everyone we would get an extremely distorted view of what everybody actually believes.

Has it ever occurred to you that you may say/write something that is perfectly clear in your own mind but understood as ambiguous by another person? Communication is a two-way process. Miscommunication problem can be with the source or the receiver.

Quote:

The FACT is Ellen White made an ambiguous statement and as such it remains ambiguous. End of story.

So then, if she made an ambiguous statement, all I'm saying is to look at the totality of her writings. Did she ever express any thoughts about a race of half beast and half human? A race not made in the image of God? If a statement is ambiguous, it is the height of egotism to insist that what she meant is the way you are interpreting her statement.

[BobRyan]

As a matter of fact, Mrs. White herself, relating this vision, described Saturn as having only seven moons

[John317]

It happened in 1846, in the house of Mr. Curtis, and in the presence of Elder (Captain) Bates.

Your spin is she never named these planets. It was just a coincidence that the planets she visited ( astral travel ) were identical to Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus. The only problem was that we now know that they have more moons then was first though.

If these were not Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus, why didnt she ever correct Elder Loughboroughs error on page 258 of his book, The Great Second Advent Movement?

Ellen White never said what planet it was because she didn't know. She didn't know if it was Saturn or not. She simply knew it was a planet somewhere in God's universe. God didn't tell her the name of the planet or its location.

Why would she "correct" Loughborough if she didn't know whether he was wrong or not?

This criticism of Ellen White is a groundless as the one about "amalgamation."

Ellen White never studied astronomy but Joseph Bates had. The vision convinced him that Ellen White was a true prophet because he believed her description to fit one of the planets that he was familiar with.

.

[John317]

It's not spin-- it is a fact that she didn't name the planet.

Originally Posted By: Klapas

It was just a coincidence that the planets she visited ( astral travel ) were identical to Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus.

It was a vision. Her feet were on the earth the whole time, just like John the Revelator. They were both given visions of heavenly things.

Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus don't look the same and don't have the same number of moons.

Ellen White had never studied astronomy. Captain Joseph Bates had studied the planets.

Originally Posted By: Klapas

The only problem was that we now know that they have more moons then was first though.

Why is that a problem? It would only be a problem if Ellen White said God showed her that Jupiter has seven moons. But she never identified the planet. It was Joseph Bates who concluded it was Saturn. How can you reasonably blame Ellen White for that?

Quote:

If these were not Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus, why didnt she ever correct Elder Loughboroughs error on page 258 of his book, The Great Second Advent Movement?[/quote']

Ellen White never said what planet it was because she didn't know. She didn't know if it was Saturn or not. She simply knew it was a planet somewhere in God's universe. God didn't tell her the name of the planet or its location.

She would have corrected Loughborough if she knew he was wrong. But she didn't know.

So why would she "correct" Loughborough if she didn't know whether he was wrong or not?

[ClubV12]

For me the kicker is, whatever planet you want to name it, at least one of the planets she referred to had inhabitants.

In my opinion it is just not logical the Lord would have created heavenly beings on ANY planet within OUR polluted tiny solar system. You can bet where ever that inhabited planet was, it wasn't even in the Milky Way galaxie. Not even in one of the many a galaxies considered "local" to us. Like Andromeda or severl others "nearby" galaxies. Far, FAR removed from this region of the Universe, in my opinion.

How BIG are these 200 billion plus estimated galaxies in the Universe? It would take 25,000 LIGHT YEARS to even reach the EDGE of OURS! Which means, by the way, if were going to travel and explore these other galaxies, the speed of light as a "law" only applies when God deems it to be so. He created the laws of the Universe, He nor any created being of His, is bound by them except as He chooses that to be the case.

[phkrause]

For me the kicker is, whatever planet you want to name it, at least one of the planets she referred to had inhabitants.

In my opinion it is just not logical the Lord would have created heavenly beings on ANY planet within OUR polluted tiny solar system. You can bet where ever that inhabited planet was, it wasn't even in the Milky Way galaxie. Not even in one of the many a galaxies considered "local" to us. Like Andromeda or severl others "nearby" galaxies. Far, FAR removed from this region of the Universe, in my opinion.

How BIG are these 200 billion plus estimated galaxies in the Universe? It would take 25,000 LIGHT YEARS to even reach the EDGE of OURS! Which means, by the way, if were going to travel and explore these other galaxies, the speed of light as a "law" only applies when God deems it to be so. He created the laws of the Universe, He nor any created being of His, is bound by them except as He chooses that to be the case.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

Wrong.

Ambiguity is ambiguity. That is plain and simple.

You cannot argue from omission. If we did that with everyone we would get an extremely distorted view of what everybody actually believes.

Has it ever occurred to you that you may say/write something that is perfectly clear in your own mind but understood as ambiguous by another person? Communication is a two-way process. Miscommunication problem can be with the source or the receiver.

Quote:

The FACT is Ellen White made an ambiguous statement and as such it remains ambiguous. End of story.

So then, if she made an ambiguous statement, all I'm saying is to look at the totality of her writings. Did she ever express any thoughts about a race of half beast and half human? A race not made in the image of God? If a statement is ambiguous, it is the height of egotism to insist that what she meant is the way you are interpreting her statement.

Ambiguity still stands and you cannot wish it away. You do not know what Ellen White meant. You are only guessing.

Your desire for it be in a certain way does not make it so. That is why it is ambiguous. No one knows what Ellen White meant except Ellen White and God.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: Klapas

As a matter of fact, Mrs. White herself, relating this vision, described Saturn as having only seven moons

That is totally false. At no time did Ellen White ever claim that Saturn has 7 or 6 or 5 or 8 moons.

Rather she explicitly stated that she had no knowledge at all of which planets are which. Nothing at all about astronomy and your own quote debunks your "play book claim".

Quote:

"Early Writings," page 32: "Then I was taken to a world which had seven moons."

This is the part where the false accusation simply dies a crib death for it "needed" Ellen White to say "I was taken to SATURN which has seven moons" to make the false accusation "stick".

Come on - how hard is this??

No ambiguity here just outright false accusations being made without any sense of objectivity or moral high ground.

Why in the world would devotion to "playbook complaints" drive someone to such extremes?

Are we really supposed to believe that the only planet in the entire universe with multiple moons is Saturn - so Ellen White must have been talking about Saturn??

At this point that accusation does not get off the ground.

Loughborough himself was explicit in stating that Ellen White claimed to have no information at all from God or based on her own study - as to which planet is which.

Why is a non-SDA so interested in dead-end playbook failed claim after dead-end claim? Why not go after actual SDA doctrine instead of that string of failed claims? At least in the context of Bible doctrine you would have a ghost of a chance of having as much context information on the topic as informed SDAs.

in Christ,

Bob

Bob, I have to agree with you here. Unless Ellen White used the word "Saturn" no one but God and Ellen White know what planet she was talking about. It may even be that Ellen White herself does not know what planet it was. The fact that the Planet had seven moons does not necessarily make it "Saturn". Could she have mistakenly in her mind meant "Saturn"? Maybe. But again to draw such a conclusion is not in evidence by her simple statement and thus it is wrong for us to conclude that she meant "Saturn" because we just flat out do not know. Again this just guessing on any human's part. We cannot discount and/or count anything in or out. We simply do not know.

Consistency also demands us to take this view because it is the only option open.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: Klapas

It happened in 1846, in the house of Mr. Curtis, and in the presence of Elder (Captain) Bates.

Your spin is she never named these planets. It was just a coincidence that the planets she visited ( astral travel ) were identical to Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus. The only problem was that we now know that they have more moons then was first though.

If these were not Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus, why didnt she ever correct Elder Loughboroughs error on page 258 of his book, The Great Second Advent Movement?

Ellen White never said what planet it was because she didn't know. She didn't know if it was Saturn or not. She simply knew it was a planet somewhere in God's universe. God didn't tell her the name of the planet or its location.

Why would she "correct" Loughborough if she didn't know whether he was wrong or not?

This criticism of Ellen White is a groundless as the one about "amalgamation."

Ellen White never studied astronomy but Joseph Bates had. The vision convinced him that Ellen White was a true prophet because he believed her description to fit one of the planets that he was familiar with.

.

In this case the onus is on Bates not on Ellen White.