Is there life beyond Daniel and Revelation?

[Gerr]

So, because he preached, it was not prophecy?

If a prophet was to deliver a message, a vision, from the Lord, would he not preach it?

[Lysimachus]

So while the above Dennis, may work to perhaps modify your view a slight tad, it does wonders at putting Gustave and JASD in their places. It totally demolishes their theories, to smithereens.

[Lysimachus]

"At their settlement in Canaan "they did not destroy the nations, concerning whom the Lord commanded them: but were mingled among the heathen, and learned their works. And they served their idols: which were a snare unto them." Their heart was not right with God, "neither were they steadfast in His covenant. But He, being full of compassion, forgave their iniquity, and destroyed them not: yea, many a time turned He His anger away. . . . For He remembered that they were but flesh; a wind that passeth away, and cometh not again." Psalm 106:34-36; 78:37-39. {Ed 45.1} "

Outstanding evidence that God changes his mind over time.

[Guest DennisKean]

Quote:

I can see what you're saying, Dennis, that a prophecy and a promise can be different, but I must confess, it is hard to completely separate the two in every case.

Prophecy foretold the falling of the Babylonian empire, yet God through Daniel gave Belshazzar every opportunity to repent.

With bated breath the people waited as Daniel announced their meaning: “Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin:” “God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it;” “thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting;” “thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.” [Daniel 5:25-28.] {CTBH 21.1}

To be "weighed in the balances" means that Babylon had an opportunity to repent. The result of not repenting was the destruction of Babylon by the Medes and the Persians. There are other statements from Sister White how she says that each nation had a chance to turn and repent and be saved, and would have been spared from destruction.

And that is why many details in the events of the real Babylon do not map to the parabolic prophecy for Babylon the great. We can look into that any time you like. For now I'll give you a few examples.

Quote:

Isa 13:4 The noise of a multitude in the mountains, like as of a great people; a tumultuous noise of the kingdoms of nations gathered together: the LORD of hosts mustereth the host of the battle.

Isa 13:5 They come from a far country, from the end of heaven, even the LORD, and the weapons of his indignation, to destroy the whole land.

From the end of heaven??? What is that supposed to mean??? Well, this Babylon of ours is going to experience that. And guess from where the host of destruction is coming? So, this does not apply to the old Babylon at all. And here is more of it.

Quote:

Isa 14:1 For the LORD will have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel, and set them in their own land: and the strangers shall be joined with them, and they shall cleave to the house of Jacob.

Isa 14:2 And the people shall take them, and bring them to their place: and the house of Israel shall possess them in the land of the LORD for servants and handmaids: and they shall take them captives, whose captives they were; and they shall rule over their oppressors.

Isa 14:3 And it shall come to pass in the day that the LORD shall give thee rest from thy sorrow, and from thy fear, and from the hard bondage wherein thou wast made to serve,

Isa 14:4 That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!

Isa 14:5 The LORD hath broken the staff of the wicked, and the sceptre of the rulers.

Isa 14:6 He who smote the people in wrath with a continual stroke, he that ruled the nations in anger, is persecuted, and none hindereth.

Isa 14:7 The whole earth is at rest, and is quiet: they break forth into singing.

Hyperbole, Marcos??? I think not! This is direct reference to the end time events. "The whole earth is at rest..." Strange hyperbole when you mix it with what comes next.

Quote:

Isa 14:9 Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.

Isa 14:10 All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us?

Isa 14:11 Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee.

Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

Oh, I get it now! Now we know for sure where to go in revelation to identify this strange and imprecise prophecy against the old Babylon! So, let's go there!

Quote:

Rev 20:1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.

Rev 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

Take a lesson here to heart. The real target was not the OLD BABYLON. It was the GREAT BABYLON that God wanted to comment about. He used what was coming to the little old Babylon and turned it into a parabolic reference of the real target.

Many people simply cannot make sense of this because they fail to recognize the power of polymorphism. God uses complex objects and strips some properties, highlighting the essential properties in the discussion to paint a grand parable, hoping that we will catch on sooner or later. And he has done a lot to suggest this to the reader.

And Jeremiah has the very same modality. He too spoke about Babylon with amazing detail! Here is one which can only apply today, but a light reader could misapply it to old Babylon.

Quote:

Jer 51:49 As Babylon hath caused the slain of Israel to fall, so at Babylon shall fall the slain of all the earth.

Hyperbole??? I don't think so, Marcos! Look at the language carefully. God is making a great effort at showing that the details do not really apply to old Babylon. None of those prophecies were meant for their time. And the reason was because God would not venture to lock down the people into a situation where their future is determined ahead of time. It would be too specific. There is great wisdom involved there, Marcos. God is a master at conveying ideas. You just have to sit and study it for a long time until it sinks in. The old time prophets missed not a word. Every utterance was meant to be conveyed throughout history. So historicism is so well backed up by the old prophets that it is a sheer joy to read them and see the isomorphism.

Quote:

So while these were prophecies, they were also promises.

While the following is from Ellen White, her argument comes from scripture:

In that last night of mad folly, Belshazzar and his lords had filled up the measure of their guilt and the guilt of the Chaldean kingdom. No longer could God's restraining hand ward off the impending evil. Through manifold providences, God had sought to teach them reverence for His law. "We would have healed Babylon," He declared of those whose judgment was now reaching unto heaven, "but she is not healed." Jeremiah 51:9. Because of the strange perversity of the human heart, God had at last found it necessary to pass the irrevocable sentence. Belshazzar was to fall, and his kingdom was to pass into other hands. {PK 530.3}

As the prophet ceased speaking, the king commanded that he be awarded the promised honors; and in harmony with this, "they clothed Daniel with scarlet, and put a chain of gold about his neck, and made a proclamation concerning him, that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom." {PK 530.4}

And if you keep reading, she continues to quote how the prophets predicted the fall of Babylon, yet we see that even with this "prophecy" (not a promise alone), she would have been "healed".

Every nation that has come upon the stage of action has been permitted to occupy its place on the earth, that the fact might be determined whether it would fulfill the purposes of the Watcher and the Holy One. Prophecy has traced the rise and progress of the world's great empires--Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. With each of these, as with the nations of less power, history has repeated itself. Each has had its period of test; each has failed, its glory faded, its power departed. {PK 535.1}

If their failure was unconditional, it could not be considered a "test". Thus we see that each nation could have repented.

Jeremiah 51 was designed for the Great Babylon, but modeled on the old Babylon. God knew what he was about to do to the old babylon, but He designed Jeremiah's words to target the Great Babylon. Read chapter 51 carefully. And remember to recognize that polymorphism is at play. God uses structures from local events, even if they are in the near future, as in the case of Jeremiah. But from them He discusses grander themes.

Dennis

[Guest DennisKean]

Quote:

"At their settlement in Canaan "they did not destroy the nations, concerning whom the Lord commanded them: but were mingled among the heathen, and learned their works. And they served their idols: which were a snare unto them." Their heart was not right with God, "neither were they steadfast in His covenant. But He, being full of compassion, forgave their iniquity, and destroyed them not: yea, many a time turned He His anger away. . . . For He remembered that they were but flesh; a wind that passeth away, and cometh not again." Psalm 106:34-36; 78:37-39. {Ed 45.1} "

Outstanding evidence that God changes his mind over time.

As long as you keep in mind the idea that prophecies do not target individuals and promises do not target generalities, you will be safe. There is an inverse relation there between 4 elements.

Dennis

[Lysimachus]

I see how it is also applied for Great Babylon, Ellen White is also applying it to old Babylon. In many other places, I can't find them right now, she mentions how each of the successive empires had opportunity to turn to God and would have been spared had they repented. Even the Papacy in the Reformation she says had an opportunity.

While Ellen White, as a person, was not infallible, the words of inspiration themselves, I think not, can be classified with this infallibility. Other statements of hers clarify this. These assertions, that these empires could have repented and been spared destruction during their ancient existence, are just too monumental to be wrong. And this argument, I feel, serves to put Gustave in his place.

[Guest DennisKean]

Quote:

So, because he preached, it was not prophecy?

If a prophet was to deliver a message, a vision, from the Lord, would he not preach it?

In how many ways will you try to break this very clear idea?

This message was targeting known people who did something that God did not approve of. So, like a good shepherd, God warned them. He sent someone to admonish them. He promised that If they do not change things will not go well. They changed and God changed His mind.

Prophecies, however talk about God's plans for how He will deal with types of people, not anyone in particular. God is not going to change His mind about how He is going to deal with the wicked and suddenly say, I will do it differently. His disposition toward sin and sinner is the same and it does not change. That is why prophecies do not change. The target makes the difference.

Dennis

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Never declared my infallibility, just the infallibility of plain text -- without assorted .org dogmas attached.

>>You can play coy all you want. Insight does not come from reading alone. Insight comes from understanding what is being read.<<

That may be true of this, that, or the other; however, we speak of John 20:23. How can one not understand the plainest words, "Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them;"? Should the average reader be unable to understand these forthright and easily understood words -- why would that reader turn the page of his or her Bible. The assertion being advanced is: insight and understanding of Holy Writ comes by other channels only. That is arrogant, for sometimes "insight and understanding" are both revealed in plain text. Nothing esoteric in a plainly written text -- with no qualifier text imposing upon it.

>>Understanding, however, sits between the letters on the paper and the perceptions of the mind, if I must clarify this to you in such detail.<<

We speak of average readers. Average recipients of the word; not clever expositors sifting for subtext. So, the above obtains but is hardly relevant to John 20:23, unless one is Gnostically inclined, a conjurer of things mystic and strange. A manipulator of texts to hammer into biased holes.

>>And understanding is a personal engagement which is frequently known with the potential of erring.<<

As is evident of those who oppose the explicit reading of John 20:23.

>>So, you can try to obfuscate this, but I will filter it out and shed more light on it until you come face to face with your disposition.<<

Have already come "face to face" and find myself in agreement with text and text with me.

>>And concerning the Bible there is much disagreement, JASD.<<

Indeed, 30,000-plus Protesting .orgs and counting...

>>So, deflecting this plainly demonstrated pomposity in limiting the choices to your understanding and God is AT LEAST pompous. You can wiggle, scratch and bite, but to no avail.<<

Am not agreeing to what you've inferred and am not squiggling about. It is whole cloth.

>>It is time you realize already that the gig is up. So, feel free to spice it with some Latin and your convoluted constructs,<<

So, tell me, how have I "constructed" what is not evident in John 20:23? It is as I've said, "Plain text." No "construct" need apply.

>>but I will enjoy debunking them.<<

You've had opportunity enough to do so...

>>And for the record, please notice how far you are attempting to go to evade this "faux pas" on your part.<<

Specifically, what "faux pas"?--not the dried egg, gravy, and such in my beard!?

>>This will be useful when I start to deal with your other tenacity to assert what is simply not true.<<

Don't conflate what I sometimes put 'out there' -- with "assertion".

>>So, come back at me again and I will gladly give you more clarifications.<<

The dry well is always inexhaustible. Don't mean it as it comes across, but I'll stay with it as it is so, so, so... aphoristic.

>>Then we will notice how far you are willing to go even when you are as wrong as could be, but you are still hanging on.<<

One always hangs onto truths.

>>It is not paying off for you, but you cannot give in. Can you? And I will remind you again about this, JASD.<<

Oh yes, it pays off for me. Don't really suppose that it 'pays off' on this venue though.

>>Clarity of mind is a precious thing, my friend.<<

Clarity is a sometime seeming fancy -- taking nourishment from what it is fed. That said, my clarity really jingle-jangles -- sometimes providing me with the music of the spheres, and at other times finds me in a grain of sand looking for the world.

>>Don't destroy yours for such a low interest return.<<

That's rather cynical re truths, yes?

[Gerr]

• Every nation that has come upon the stage of action has been permitted to occupy its place on the earth, that the fact might be determined whether it would fulfill the purposes of the Watcher and the Holy One. Prophecy has traced the rise and progress of the world's great empires--Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. With each of these, as with the nations of less power, history has repeated itself. Each has had its period of test; each has failed, its glory faded, its power departed. {PK 535.1}

If their failure was unconditional, it could not be considered a "test". Thus we see that each nation could have repented.

And there would be no free will.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Quote:

I can find no evidence of the existence of such a book in the NYCL nor in any other library or private holdings anywhere in the world.

Oh, man I just barely finished saying the book's name and you circled the world to find it and could not! Good heavens, can I turn to you to find some of the fine books I cannot find, like "Fletcher's theory on Acoustics"? Now that would be boss if you could find me that book???

So, what part of "tightly guarded" did you not understand?

Fletcher's Acoustics is available at Amazon.com Order it through C/A and you will help the forum.

Too bad you cannot provide an author of the "Jesuit book" to which you have referred. If you state something I find interesting and/or suspicious, and I do research which shows your statement is unfounded, I'm going to ask you to cite your source and to provide further **verifiable** data. Since you cannot do this, and, indeed, resort to obfuscation, your current assertion is invalid, thus your integrity on all topics is suspect.

Have a nice day.

[Guest DennisKean]

Individuals, leaders can learn from prophecies, but they are not targets of the unchangeable sure prophecies.

Cheddar understood the problem. If God's prophecies are uncertain, then you make God out to be unreliable.

Quote:

Deu 18:21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?

Deu 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

Gerry, you can't get beyond that point. And there are many more of those in the Bible. Is Gog and Magog going to be able to repent? You just cannot grasp this idea, but prophecies are not designed for specific individuals. I see Marcos supplying EGW to make a point, but I am not sure that is the wisest course to take.

Quote:

"Our position and faith is in the Bible. . . . And never do we want any soul to bring in the Testimonies ahead of the Bible." Evangelism, p. 256

God says " if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken," but we say that the failed prophecy was conditional. That is the bottom line. The tragedy is that the apparent failure is there because the prophecy is badly understood. People eager to find fulfillment of a particular prophecy get false positives and start to claim that God's plans failed! Wow! I would think that we need to look up and give our confidence to God, not the false positives which we think were "could have beens". The "could have beens" may be the failure of those who imagine that it could have been! And I will gladly show how the "could have beens" could not have been, if anyone is up for the challenge.

My mistaken post about EGW being infallible misrepresented my position. That was just an ommission on my part. I would not make that mistake intentionally. But it brought this idea to light and I am thankful for that.

Many still struggle with little issues which the pioneers thought might be true. Conditional prophecies is one of those silly ideas. And now we are faced with "Bible or EGW?" So, that is where Gustave fits. Wow! Is God trying to help you, friends?

Quote:

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 the 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.” Review and Herald, June 18, 1888.

Perhaps that now you can understand why I do not use EGW to defend my strong positions.

Well, here it is Brothers and Sisters. You now are facing this dilemma. Either God is right, or the pioneers were right. This idea about conditional prophecies is not EGW's idea alone. The choice should be simple.

The problem with Gustave is that he wants to use this error in our Adventist view as a portal for more errors. And as long as you put the Testimonies ahead of the Bible you will suffer the agony of having to put up with the likes of Gustave and Jasd.

Now it all makes sense. Cheddar grasped the idea easily and many of you need to catch up.

I do not quote EGW on Biblical doctrine, though I learned so much from her and will always believe that God used her to accomplish an amazing task. But it was God and not EGW who accomplished this. So now, let me start to quote EGW, since that is the order of the hour.

Quote:

"We must not think, 'Well, we have all the truth, we understand the main pillars of our faith, and we may rest on this knowledge.' The truth is an advancing truth, and we must walk in the increasing light." (RH: March 25, 1890).

For the light reader, this is a mild comment and yeah, we read it many times. But for those who seek clarity, read this over and over until it sinks what she really said! May God give you the clarity you need to grasp this.

Dennis

[Guest DennisKean]

The book "The travels of the Jesuits throughout Europe" was in the main hall of the NYC library until 1969. Then it was moved to a special section of the NYC Library, because it was a very rare book. I found the reference card in the main library and tried to find the book. After talking to the library's personnel I discovered where it was moved to.

I lived in NYC for more than 20 years. I was a frequent visitor of the library. I also paid out of my pocket to preserve some books which could have been lost. One of them was a book by Isaac Newton on the topic of Daniel. Isaac Newton was an astute student of prophecies. Some of his views were so similar to our Adventist views that I decided those books should be preserved. I paid $40.00 to have that book Microfiched.

So, I am not a novice to the NYC Library, RudyWoofs... I know that library and its nook and crannies from top to bottom. I spent countless hours in it reading books from Christians in the Dark Ages and their testimonies on how things were in their days. And I could recount some of the most amazing stories you ever heard from those books.

And the Fletcher I was talking about lived in the 19th century, so it is not the right book you found! Fletcher was an astonishing student in the early industrial revolution and his contribution has nearly been forgotten.

So, if that discovery reflects your ability to find rare books, you need to spend time in NYC and discover the immense volumes of books which are not referenced and still floating about in the myriad old book stores of Manhattan. NYC is a wild town!

Dennis

[Guest DennisKean]

The problem with that theory is that if they would could have experienced a completion in those days where would the crucifixion have taken place? The theory that the 40 days could have replaced the 40 years in the wilderness would have wrecked the 70 years prophecy which pointed to the 70 Jubilees. Then we would have had 400 years that God gave Abraham's seed, the 30 years extra, which were the model of the Israel's mission until the Savior. And then only 430 days, instead of 40 years to complete it all???

That is nothing more than speculations. And that is not EGW's ideas. She was influenced into that silly idea. But when you put the Testimonies ahead of the Bible, you have no choice but to believe these ideas. Try to develop these ideas directly from the Bible, Marcos. You will not be successful.

So, this is less than an effective way to prove a point.

"The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people is not proof that our ideas are infallible." (RH: December 20, 1892; par. 1).

Look at the date of that comment! She learned a lot in her last years with us.

Dennis

[Gustave]

Gustave's problem is that he does not know how to harmonize the concept of an eternal plan being laid out and understood verses the risk of the ultimate conclusion of that outcome.

[Guest DennisKean]

Quote:

God the Father already told you what the outcome would be Lysimachus...

...God the Son already told you what the outcome would be.

...God the Holy Spirit already told you what the outcome would be.

...Angels already told you what the outcome would be.

...Even the demons tod you what the outcome would be.

God, who "faithfully" executes His purposes, who's word NEVER retuns to Him empty...

..."Risked" not being able to deviler what He said He would.

...Through the mouth of EVERY PROPHET!

This is where the SDA wagon looses it's wheels...

...There was no risk, EVER!

...God was going to come, suffer & die & be Resurrected on the 3rd day.

...Period.

Like a parasitic infection you keep coming back to that spot which simply cannot be moved. Get up to date and stop this unworkable rhetoric, Gustave. You lost that point and you just refuse to understand it. Give an explanation to the last words of the Savior if you can. You are sitting on the bottom of the barrel on this but your audacity is amazing, to say the least. Get with it and read up on the posts to catch up. Your one pony show is now a pony-less show. That pony died!

Quote:

There we go - that's the old SDA rubric that if Ellen White wasn't right...

...Then I don't want to worship that kind of God.

...Classic cult thinking Lysimachus.

This is why I asked Dennis and yourself WHAT risk was there in Christ NOT being born from a virgin???

...Or being called out of Egypt.

You fail to understand what we are talking about and you do not see what risk we are talking about. So you try to create an analogue, but your analogy betrays your inability to grasp the nature of what we are conveying concerning RISK.

Furthermore, you think that you mousetrap comments are going to catch something, not realizing that it betrays your inability to clarify your position. And that is done by you intentionally so you will not give away the hand behind your back.

But you stand no chance of catching anything with the way that you have set up your imaginary traps, Gustave. You are so easy to read and your simplicity surprises me.

Like I told you before, get out and breathe some fresh air. Look around and expand your insights. You are beating a dead pony!

Dennis

[Lysimachus]

The problem with that theory is that if they would could have experienced a completion in those days where would the crucifixion have taken place? The theory that the 40 days could have replaced the 40 years in the wilderness would have wrecked the 70 years prophecy which pointed to the 70 Jubilees. Then we would have had 400 years that God gave Abraham's seed, the 30 years extra, which were the model of the Israel's mission until the Savior. And then only 430 days, instead of 40 years to complete it all???

That is nothing more than speculations. And that is not EGW's ideas. She was influenced into that silly idea. But when you put the Testimonies ahead of the Bible, you have no choice but to believe these ideas. Try to develop these ideas directly from the Bible, Marcos. You will not be successful.

So, this is less than an effective way to prove a point.

"The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people is not proof that our ideas are infallible." (RH: December 20, 1892; par. 1).

Look at the date of that comment! She learned a lot in her last years with us.

Dennis

I do agree that all doctrines must be developed from the Bible and the Bible alone. The only reason I quoted Sister White was because she was doing a profound job at citing the Bible, thus it was really the Bible that was being appealed to, with only some Sister White commentary.

Also, when Ellen White says, "certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our pepopel is not proof that our ideas are infallible", does not mean that she herself wrote sentiments that were to be used as "expressing these sentiments" of those "doctrines". Many things Uriah Smith and J.N. Andrews taught, for example, Ellen White never commented on them. While she may have believed them herself, the Holy Spirit would impress her to remain silent on some matters of our doctrines.

This is why constantly when the pioneers of our Church would come to Sister White on certain matters, her response was, "God has not given me light on that matter". She never felt impress to comment on something the Spirit had not impressed her to write on....yet our Adventist Pioneers had formed many doctrines from their study of the Bible, yet with virtually little to no commentary from Sister White.

This is because God knew that many of these doctrines would need further study and modification in the future.

However, everything that Sister White affirmed as "doctrinal", such as the 1260 years from 538 to 1798, or the Investigative Judgment beginning in 1844, these were the "pillars" that were not to be moved.

Whenever she affirmed it as absolute truth, you can be sure that if you dig a little deeper into the Bible, you'll end up finding it. It's a matter of time.

So that's what we must do first. Find it in the Bible before offering it to the table as truth.

[Lysimachus]

Gustave:

Jeremiah 51:9 - "We would have healed Babylon, but she is not healed: forsake her, and let us go every one into his own country: for her judgment reacheth unto heaven, and is lifted up [even] to the skies."

If there was no possible way for either old Babylon or Great Babylon to be healed, why did God waste His time writing this?

Also, answer this Gustave:

"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:56)

If there was no risk, why was Christ crying out? Why did He ask this cup to pass Him by? Obviously Christ knew the great risk!

Gustave, for you to teach the PERFIDIOUS ideology that there was no risk in the plan of redemption is pure HERESY, and CULTIC of the HIGHEST ORDER!!

So don't go around telling US that we are teaching a CULTIC teaching. HOW DARE YOU!

[Gibs]

Gustave,

Just a civil word on the subject of Christ possibly failing.

I am sure Satan would have known if it were not a possiblity or not. From the records of scripture he, Satan felt pretty sure he could bring Him down. He gave it everyting he had as he knew his ole "goose" was cooked if he failed to do so.

Well Glory for us Satan did fail and he is an angry old foe to us all of mankind.

But Jesus made a way that we could be "under His Wings" and Satan can't touch any that are. And that Way He made gives us His power also to be overcomers as He was.

We are Blessed!

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.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

But you've not established that I am wrong. It does not do to simply assert. What you've instead argued is ad hominem; that is, you've argued to the person rather than to the text.

>>That is patently false,<<

Okay, I'll accept that for what it's worth.

>>but I definitely am interested in you and how you handle yourself under heat.<<

I'm a sometime thing.

>>I'm testing your competence to reason honestly.<<

Well, you'll have noticed, of course -- that I have reasoned honestly with the subject addressed -- moreover, have done so from text and with inate honesty -- "competence" being entirely irrelevant where plain text is in view. So I think, should you be an honest fella, you have your answer.

Ain not called Honest Injun fer nuthin'.

>>What point is there to reason with someone who like a pit bull will not release the bite when found to be unreasonable?<<

I've asked that re yourself and have arrived at the conclusion that one who will not accept the authoritative words of Jesus Christ, but diligently strives to unauthoritively impose upon them conditioned biases -- cannot be reasoned with.

>>Please tell me if there is any point in discussing with folks like that?<<

Depends upon the subject material, or whereupon/whatupon the dialogue turns, and/or if there is a listening audience.

>>I've lost track of the number of people I met to date who were born being right and use tenacity instead of intellect to prevail.<<

Tenacity is often to be preferred than "intellect", as intellect comes wearing many, many guises.

>>I make mistakes all the time.<<

I know. You're currently make one re John 20:23 by refusing to accept the fact that Jesus Christ spoke those words -- and in so doing, you may be missing a very compelling Biblical revelation.

>>I just misquoted EGW with Gustave. But I learn from them. Do you?<<

Whoa!--like, someone who wrote more than 30-million word$ ain not easy to mi$quote? Anyhow, I learn even when I am totally and indisputably right. Ever learning. Ever coming into truths.

>>That is what I want to know about you, Jasd.<<

Now you know. Would have been easier to klatsch with Lysimachus, eh?

>>And you are helping me figure you out. Thank you for that. So far you are unable to release no matter what.<<

What!?---"release" from the plainly spoken, "Thus sayeth the Lord..."? Bit short on the clarity there, fellow?

>>you will suffer the agony of having to put up with the likes of Gustave and Jasd.<<

Okay, here it is:

Enough of this 'round and 'round the Mulberry; I'm afraid you'll soon turn into corn syrup or sumfin'. Spell it out -- how is it that Jesus Christ can state a thing so explicitly, so plainly as not to be mispoken (Jn 20:23); having no discernible sub-text; no vagueness; no ellipsis; no parabolicism; and yet, though speaking in the active subjunctive -- be speaking other than what He said!?

Make best case. Otherwise, you've endued text with what it is not meant to be endued with. It is .Orgiastic.

We dull the lead of our pencils with much repeating...

[jasd]

>>So while the above Dennis, may work to perhaps modify your view a slight tad, it does wonders at putting Gustave and JASD in their places. It totally demolishes their theories, to smithereens.<<

Helloooo? Knock, knock. Helloooo? Lys? Anybody there?...anybody? ...aloo-oooo?

>>Whenever she affirmed it as absolute truth, you can be sure that if you dig a little deeper into the Bible, you'll end up finding it. It's a matter of time.<<

Like Daniel 12:4 was found?--or should I say,"Not found?"

>>So that's what we must do first. Find it in the Bible before offering it to the table as truth.<<

I guess the default is -- "Not found", eh?

[jasd]

Re Prophecy:

"I say unto thee that the blessings of heaven will pour upon thee withou let, as I have desired it." --Gd speaking (unconditional prophecy)

"However, shoulda, woulda, coulda, if, and, but, etc -- you will not hearken..." -- Gd speaking (the unconditional prophecy is now become a conditional prophecy)

The conditional prophecy is a qualified prophecy. All utterances of/by Gd should they foretell, no matter the form they take -- are by their nature prophetic: ipso facto, prophecy. [/imho]

Gd utilizes both.

[Gerr]

Individuals, leaders can learn from prophecies, but they are not targets of the unchangeable sure prophecies.

Cheddar understood the problem. If God's prophecies are uncertain, then you make God out to be unreliable.

Quote:

Deu 18:21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?

Deu 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

Gerry, you can't get beyond that point. And there are many more of those in the Bible. Is Gog and Magog going to be able to repent? You just cannot grasp this idea, but prophecies are not designed for specific individuals. I see Marcos supplying EGW to make a point, but I am not sure that is the wisest course to take.

[/ote]

So what did God mean when He said:

ESV Je 18:7 If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, 8 and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it. 9 And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, 10 and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it.

Quote:

Many still struggle with little issues which the pioneers thought might be true. Conditional prophecies is one of those silly ideas.

Now it all makes sense. Cheddar grasped the idea easily and many of you need to catch up.

Your pomposity is astounding.

I NEVER quote EGW to bolster my position unless talking to an Adventist who brings her in first.

Quote:

Well, here it is Brothers and Sisters. You now are facing this dilemma. Either God is right, or the pioneers were right. This idea about conditional prophecies is not EGW's idea alone. The choice should be simple.

What I see is that when a prophecy is fulfilled, you are saying God was correct. When a prophecy is not fulfilled, you are saying it was only preaching! Talk about silly ideas!

Quote:

' The truth is an advancing truth, and we must walk in the increasing light." (RH: March 25, 1890).

For the light reader, this is a mild comment and yeah, we read it many times. But for those who seek clarity, read this over and over until it sinks what she really said! May God give you the clarity you need to grasp this.

Dennis

It is not progress when one goes from truth into error.

[Tom Wetmore]

Moderator Note:

I think this topic has passed its expiration date. The ad hominem commentary is its spoilage.

It is now locked.