The Real Interpretation Of Rev. Chap. 13:

[Lysimachus]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

"But the beast with lamblike horns was seen 'coming up out of the earth.' Instead of overthrowing other powers to establish itself, the nation thus represented must arise in territory previously unoccupied and grow up gradually and peacefully. It could not, then, arise among the crowded and struggling nationalities of the Old World--that turbulent sea of "peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues." It must be sought in the Western Continent.

The FACTS are:

1. The American Revolution was indeed and "overthrow" of British power in the New World (the establishment).

2. The "territory" was indeed "occupied". You think the Native Americans were just a figment the Europeans' imagination when they came here to settle. In fact the New World around the time of the American Revolution was "occupied" by Native Americans, the Spanish, the French, the Russians, and the English.

Thus, Ellen White/writings got it WRONG.

Ellen White/writings get it WRONG:

1. In interpreting Revelation chapter thirteen as the United States.

2. In her statement of fact and analysis of the rise of United States (history).

In the second point immediately above, Ellen White and her editors "copied the wrong historical facts".

Yes, Ellen White copied a great deal of her facts and expressions. She did not get much of her stuff direct from God but rather from other human sources the same as you and I.

That is why like in this case, Ellen White got the FACTS WRONG.

It's not what you are saying that is wrong, it is how you are reading it that is wrong. It is how you are understanding her writings.

It is the angle you are perceiving what we are trying to say that is messing you up. You have willfully chosen to not exercise the intelligence and spiritual discernment to understand it. It's too deep for you. You don't understand it. You need to graduate first. You need to think deeper and on a higher plain from heaven's perspective, not from human secular perspective and intellect.

[Lysimachus]

The FACTS are:

1. The American Revolution was indeed and "overthrow" of British power in the New World (the establishment).

[miz3]

It's not what you are saying that is wrong, it is how you are reading it that is wrong. It is how you are understanding her writings.

It is the angle you are perceiving what we are trying to say that is messing you up. You have willfully chosen to not exercise the intelligence and spiritual discernment to understand it. It's too deep for you. You don't understand it. You need to graduate first. You need to think deeper and on a higher plain from heaven's perspective, not from human secular perspective and intellect.

I read Ellen White's words just fine. I read them exactly as she wrote them.

Why do you think that you have to twist, massage, bend, etc. her words in order to get the meaning that "you want"? Why can't you just accept the clear "unambiguous meaning" of exactly what she wrote and what that means?

It appears that you have to indeed twist massage, bend, etc. or we will all see, as we have indeed seen, that Ellen White was just plain WRONG ON THIS FACT.

Why do you think you have to have some "doctoral degree" in linguistics (or something) in order to understand Ellen White's plain third grade English. She was a simple woman of simple speech. It does not require an "advanced degree" in anything to understand her as you are asserting.

You sound like the RCC/Pope when they chained the Bibles to the monastery walls to keep it from the general public. You make it sound like only "you advanced big brains" are the only ones who can correctly interpret the writings of Ellen White.

Your assertion in this vein is just jibberish and just plain nonsense.

Admit it Lysimachus that my arguments are true and that yours are just plain weak and so you resort to the "last refuge" of those who do not have the TRUTH and that is "only a superior intellect" like Lysimachus can truly understand and the rest of us need you as our "interpreter".

[Lysimachus]

Originally Posted By: Lysimachus

It's not what you are saying that is wrong, it is how you are reading it that is wrong. It is how you are understanding her writings.

It is the angle you are perceiving what we are trying to say that is messing you up. You have willfully chosen to not exercise the intelligence and spiritual discernment to understand it. It's too deep for you. You don't understand it. You need to graduate first. You need to think deeper and on a higher plain from heaven's perspective, not from human secular perspective and intellect.

I read Ellen White's words just fine. I read them exactly as she wrote them.

Why do you think that you have to twist, massage, bend, etc. her words in order to get the meaning that "you want"? Why can't you just accept the clear "unambiguous meaning" of exactly what she wrote and what that means?

It appears that you have to indeed twist massage, bend, etc. or we will all see, as we have indeed seen, that Ellen White was just plain WRONG ON THIS FACT.

Why do you think you have to have some "doctoral degree" in linguistics (or something) in order to understand Ellen White's plain third grade English. She was a simple woman of simple speech. It does not require an "advanced degree" in anything to understand her as you are asserting.

You sound like the RCC/Pope when they chained the Bibles to the monastery walls to keep it from the general public. You make it sound like only "you advanced big brains" are the only ones who can correctly interpret the writings of Ellen White.

Your assertion in this vein is just jibberish and just plain nonsense.

Admit it Lysimachus that my arguments are true and that yours are just plain weak and so you resort to the "last refuge" of those who do not have the TRUTH and that is "only a superior intellect" like Lysimachus can truly understand and the rest of us need you as our "interpreter".

You read Ellen White's writings "just as fine" as the Atheist reads the Bible. Your ramblings won't save you.

[miz3]

It was relatively depopulated in comparison to Europe. The Indians scattered throughout the United States of America was minuscule, scattered, and dotted. This is why they white-man easily overran them, as they were as the sands of the seas that overwhelmed the Native Americans.

The Spanish had mainly settled in Florida during the May Flower, and later on into the 19th century had made it into Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California from Central America. The name of the settlement in Florida in the late 17th century was Saint Augustine, and the fortress they built there was the Castillo de San Marcos.

Hardly any Spanish were in North America.

The French were mostly in Canada, with a few land strips here and there stretching through what would later be known as United States soil.

The Russians were even less.

Don't make a fool out of yourself.

1. The Spanish were not confined to Florida. They had settled Mexico, the deep southern US, and the Southwest. This is why the Southwest has so much of the Spanish Culture in it even to this day.

2. The French settled Canada, the Midwest, the Mississippi River areas, and most of central US all the way to the Pacific.

Have you ever heard of Lewis and Clark, the Louisiana Purchase.

Have you studied the French and Indian Wars.

3. Have you not studied that the Russians ran around all over western US and Canada, from Alaska down into California.

Have you never heard about "forty-four forty or fight" when the US disputed with Russia and the British over boundaries before we bought Alaska (etc.) from the Russians.

4. Ellen White said "unoccupied", to be accurate; she should have said "compared to Europe the Americas were unoccupied". However she did not add that last part. If she had meant what you say she would have written the statement differently.

Ellen White did not say that. We have to take Ellen White by what "she actually said" not by "what we (Lysimachus, etc.) want her to say".

You keep telling us what you think she meant as if Ellen White appears to you and clarifies to you, Lysimachus, alone so that you can then tell the rest of us peons what Ellen White actually meant to say but didn't.

Surely you see how ridiculous you sound.

5. I am no novice in regard to history. So don't act like you know more about it than I do and that you have to "teach" me.

It is in part precisely because I understand history very well that I have questions about Ellen White and her writings as well as the SDA Church .org views.

You cannot take snippets of history and then twist it in order to fit your private view because you want to "defend" Ellen White and ALL HER WRITINGS as being inspired direct from God.

[Gibs]

There is a few instances where EGW began to see beyond the historic view that once was held early on. It was a mistake after 1844 was seen to not be the cleansing of the earth but the Heavenly Sanctuary that the historic view should have rescinded on. That is something that rarely has happened in any church structure.

There is one though the gates of hell have not prevailed against and the false doesn't come into Her as it's Head and Only Head is Jesus Christ and He leads it, senda ita and empowers it by His Spirit and that is what God is, Spirit.

It was in 1844 a wake up that shook the world, my grandfather was in it and my daddy told me about what my grandfather said about it. About all the people in the churches around him thought it was true and when it didn't come to pass they blamed him bitterly and he became an outcast.

He was what they call a coleporter today and mainly pushed family Bibles with the Apocrypha between the old and new testaments and he had a printing setup that he printed out Sabbath school lessons and at the little church he formed all got a copy and he passed them out to all outside who would receive them.

The disppointment almost distroyed his ministry.

It was a greater blow to SDAdventism than most have any idea.

That still is a thorn in the side of SDAdventism and the Sabbath will always be the separating thorn that Sunday keepers will fight.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[Windsor]

It's simply a difference of opinion that the MIZ3 .org (you wouldn't claim to be disorganized would you?) is going to have to accept. The United States did not become great in the period from 1776 to the time Ellen White wrote that statement by conquering other nations or throwing dissenters into prison. The Louisiana Purchase was just that, a peaceful purchase. Contrast that to Rome, Persia, Greece and Babylon whose greatness came from conquering the known world. The US became great because of the freedom it allowed its people notwithstanding the attempt by Great Britain to end it.

[miz3]

It's simply a difference of opinion that the MIZ3 .org (you wouldn't claim to be disorganized would you?) is going to have to accept. The United States did not become great in the period from 1776 to the time Ellen White wrote that statement by conquering other nations or throwing dissenters into prison. The Louisiana Purchase was just that, a peaceful purchase. Contrast that to Rome, Persia, Greece and Babylon whose greatness came from conquering the known world. The US became great because of the freedom it allowed its people notwithstanding the attempt by Great Britain to end it.

-

Then you admit that Ellen White is expressing her opinion that "US made a peaceful rise" even though she is wrong.

The native Americans of the Louisiana Purchase would disagree with you. The Mexicans would disagree concerning the Mexican-American War, the expansion from the Spanish-American War, etc. etc.