California Earthquake

[Gregory Matthews]

Northern California had a major earthquake early this morning.

The village of Angwin, home to Pacific Union College, had a 2.1 earthquake.

As I post this note, structural engineers are on site at PUC, evaluating building in an attempt to determine if there is any building damage.

No people, at PUC, are known at this time to have been injured.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

M2.1 for Angwin is barely a blip, compared to the M6.1 that American Canyon had... interesting, since the cities are only about 40 miles apart..

[Gregory Matthews]

Pam: Correct. In addition, Angwin is near St. Helena which had major power outage.

In any case, present estimates and figures are subject to re-evaluation as time passes and the facts become more clear. Right now things are still in a reactive mode.

[Kountzer]

I came here to find out what damage occurred at PUC. I knew the quake was 50 miles from San Francisco. I just didn't know in what direction. Then I heard just now that it happened in the Napa area. I lived in that area, Sonoma county, Marin, so I am somewhat familiar with the locations.

[Gregory Matthews]

As posted by PUC, earlier today:

Quote:

Early Sunday morning, a large earthquake measuring an estimated 6.0 struck southern Napa County at 3:20 a.m. While Angwin residents definitively felt the tremors, very little damage has been reported in the community.

At this time, no damage or injuries have been reported at Pacific Union College. The campus experienced a brief power outage, but at this time all critical services are functioning.

Campus officials have inspected all the exteriors of all buildings and structures on the campus property, including Angwin Plaza and the Chevron station. No visible damage has been identified. Individual interior building inspections will continue throughout the day. If any structural damage is found during these inspections, the college will assess the damage and respond appropriately with necessary repairs.

All water tanks appear safe and have no signs of structural damage. Clean water is running through the system and customers should not experience any disruption in service. The intense shaking may have stirred up sediment in the lines. This is completely normal given the magnitude of the quake.

If you should see sediment in your tap water, please stop drinking it and use bottled water for the next 24 hours. Water should be safe for non-consumption usage.

Facilities Management will continue to evaluate the water system throughout the day. Water samples are being collected and tested. We expect results within 24 hours.

The safety and well-being of the campus community is always our primary concern. Over the next few days, our team will vigilantly inspect the entire campus to ensure it is safe for students to start classes on September 22.

Please check the College's Facebook page for further updates.

[Jeannieb43]

The town of Napa itself sustained major damage to several buildings. There are pictures of it on Yahoo News.

[Gregory Matthews]

Correct. Napa did sustain major damage. Photos were on national news today, although some news reports did not identify the photos as from Napa.

[Aliensanctuary]

One of my daughters lives in Napa. She awoke about 3:30 am when her bed started lurching, the dresser fell over, pictures fell off the walls and broke the glass, bookcases fell over, and dishes flew from the cupboards smashing on the floor.

Neither she nor her husband, who is a fire fighter and paramedic, were injured, but she has no electricity or gas, just water.

[Gregory Matthews]

For the denominational announcement as to the damage see:

http://www.nccsda.com/article/348/about-us/announcements/earthquake-august-2014

[LifeHiscost]

For the denominational announcement as to the damage see:

http://www.nccsda.com/article/348/about-us/announcements/earthquake-august-2014

[JimTN]

The Napa Valley... where a whole lot of worldly pagans think that growing grapes and turning them into fermented poison is "OK"... I wonder what Sister White would've written about the quake in this area.... but it's also odd that Sister White had a house in this area, which I visited back in the late 1980s...

 

Oh well, I guess we Adventists are supposed to be a presence "everywhere" around the world, even in good ol' earthquake-prone California!...

 

Frankly, it was heart-warming to see pics of all the ruined & broken barrels of wine laying smashed on the ground in the winery storage rooms.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

The Napa Valley... where a whole lot of worldly pagans think that growing grapes and turning them into fermented poison is "OK"... I wonder what Sister White would've written about the quake in this area.... but it's also odd that Sister White had a house in this area, which I visited back in the late 1980s...

 

Oh well, I guess we Adventists are supposed to be a presence "everywhere" around the world, even in good ol' earthquake-prone California!...

 

Frankly, it was heart-warming to see pics of all the ruined & broken barrels of wine laying smashed on the ground in the winery storage rooms.

 

 that comes across as rather mean-spirited...

[JimTN]

Hmmmmm.... "mean spirited".... I just wonder what God's opinion on it all is.... oh yes, He "loves the sinner" and "hates the sin".... is "hate" too strong a word to use?.... It's the word that God chose to have His Bible writers use.... so should we "dilute" the "hate" that God has for people who turn lovely grapes into fermented poison who put all these "classy labels" on their poison to sell it to a world full of people who are having problems discerning the Truth that very soon Jesus is going to return and they will be lost if their powers of spiritual perception don't improve?...

 

One of the main things the people will cry out to us when they realize they are lost is, "Why didn't you tell us??"

 

Like it or not, they have to be told.

[Gregory Matthews]

Hate that God has for people:  Well, you have clearly demonstrated your lack of knowledge of the love that God has for fallen sinners.  

[Tom Wetmore]

Jesus turned water into that "fermented poison" as you called it...  

 

(I know, some think it was just fresh squeezed grape juice...)

[JimTN]

As Adventists have explained for 150 years, the term "wine" in the Bible refers to both fermented and un-fermented grape juice.  Noah drank some of your party-wine and laid around naked -- Lots' daughters got him drunk on party-wine -- lots of Bible verses talk about drinking wine is a foolish thing to do!  Hey, and I think there was even something on my Baptismal Certificate when I joined the SDA church I made a promise not to drink alcohol of any kind.....

 

Tom, Jesus did NOT create the equivalent of "poisoned grape juice" for the people at the wedding to drink!  Doing so would have been Jesus doing the works of Satan -- and Light has no dealings with Darkness!

 

Gregory, God is love -- and God is wrath -- it's a balancing act, both are parts of God that we have to deal with -- but when we are told that God "loves the sinner" and "hates the sin," why do you want to defuse the "hate" aspect of it?  We're coming up to a time when the Lord is going to return and He has told us that He is NOT happy and mankind's "cup of iniquity" is full -- His patience has run out, and mankind will face a "wrathful" God -- He even warned about it in the 2nd Commandment -- and if you read the final chapters in The Great Controversy you know that the bulk of mankind is going to be lost, even many Adventists!  There are around 7 billion people on this planet right now, and it's a sad and terrible thing that most of them are going to be lost -- and end up in the Lake of Fire -- and be eternally destroyed by God's "strange act"... 

 

So what do you tell the people you see walking down the street?  What do you tell the wine makers in Napa?

 

Nearly all the people you see are the Walking Dead, to use a popular current phrase.

[JimTN]

"The wine which Christ provided for the feast, and that which He gave to the disciples as a symbol of His blood, was the pure juice of the grape."  Desire of Ages, page 149

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I don't think it likely that the wedding wine was "pure grape juice."  "Everyone serves the good wine first, and then the inferior wine after the guests have become drunk. But you have kept the good wine until now" (John 2:10, NRSV)

 

People don't become drunk on pure grape juice.  It has a laxative effect.  That would hardly be conducive to a fun time at a wedding.

 

 

[Tom Wetmore]

Jim, I know very well the good Adventist "pure grape juice" explanation. ( It's not original to Adventists, by the way.  Baptists, among others, beat us to that idea.)  However it is simply not supported by a careful reading of Scripture.  The translations into English can blur the line a bit since the word in English often used in that key verse in the account of the wedding at Cana - "drunk" can mean both intoxicated or simply the past participle tense of "drink".  However, if you read the original Greek, the word, methyō, used in the passage precisely and only means "intoxicated"  So when the steward of the feast tastes the wine he goes to the bridegroom and asks him why he saved the best wine until last.  And the steward specifically describes the best wine he just tasted as the kind that people drink first until they are intoxicated so you can bring out the poorer quality wine when the intoxicated guests won't care or be so able to tell the difference since they are already too intoxicated to care or tell the difference.

 

And beyond that one story, you really cannot make a solid case for total abstinence from alcohol from Scripture.  It does condemn drunkenness, but generally speaks in neutral terms about drinking fermented beverages short of drunkenness and even at a few points positively as the case where Paul suggests a little wine for Timothy's stomach ailment instead of drinking the bad water.  I am not in any way suggesting we all take up drinking or that abstinence should no longer be taught.  But it should be on its own contemporary terms for healthful living and not a thus sayeth the Word.  Because that is simply not what Scripture says about it.  

[JimTN]

The Desire of Ages was written in 1898 -- 17 years before Sister White passed away in 1915 -- so the Lord had 17 years to "reprimand" her for writing a LIE into the best book on this planet ever written about the life of Christ, because if she wrote that the wine at the wedding that Jesus made was just the "pure juice of the grape," then God had 17 years to give her a vision to correct that error -- but none was given as far as we know!

 

The people at the wedding probably were drinking fermented wine -- and had been at it for days -- so here comes Jesus, and let's say that He made pure grape juice as Sister White said He did -- imagine how good that pure godly grape juice would've tasted to someone who had been drinking inferior alcoholic wine -- it would've tasted **GREAT**!  And there could have been a special quality in the pure grape juice that might have helped enhance the special nature of the occasion, something un-alcoholic...

 

....but I seriously, seriously doubt that Jesus would've produced the tainted/fermented grape juice that the Devil produces that destroys the mind and kills the brain cells of whoever drinks it!

 

This is the Jesus who has prepared for us the Water of Life that flows under the Tree of Life -- I have a serious problem with Jesus making POISON to feed it to human beings for His 1st miracle on this planet with the whole Host of Heaven and the unfallen worlds watching every single thing He did!

[Tom Wetmore]

Still only speculation on your part...  How do you reckon that God dealt with errors of fact or science or geography of the writers of Scripture?   Did He try to correct all their errors?

There are a number of other documented errors in EGW's writings, such as historical facts in GC. But many of the things she wrote reflected current knowledge and understanding and not directly inspired details.  She herself spoke inspiration as more of a prompting of the person than verbal dictation from God of all the particular details and word choices. Why didn't God tell her she goofed on those as well?

 

Might it be that God looks on such human imperfections, mistakes, misunderstandings with a much more forgiving and charitable perspective than we give it?  Maybe He was less concerned about this issue than we are, seeing no need to introduce new of vastly differing facts and understandings that would detract from the message points He wanted conveyed.

 

As for the people having grape juice as an enhancement as compared to good quality fermented wine, that is clearly not what the text says.  It is more wistful thinking on your part.  The steward didn't refer to the age of wine by describing it as tasting like freshly squeezed from the grapes, like very new wine. (Fermentation begins almost immediately after without refrigeration...) He clearly describes it as the good stuff that was intoxicating. Big difference in flavor there and virtually no possibility of confusion.  Even a little alcohol in fruit juice can be tasted.

[phkrause]

I couldn't find the articles or the sources from some Jewish websites on this topic, but here's something that's kinda interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermentation_in_winemaking

Also this has some interesting facts:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/godandthemachine/2012/12/wine-in-the-old-testament/

and here's strong's reference to the word tirosh

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/8492.htm

check out what it says about "new, sweet wine"

 

Has anyone ever taken a bottle of grape juice or apple juice and sat it outside to see how long it takes to ferment? I have, it took a few days, of course it depends on how warm it is. I've even had them ferment in the fridge, especially the apple juice, not so much the grape juice. Anyway there are all kinds of thoughts to this. I have no problem believing that when Jesus first made that batch of wine, it was unfermented to begin with.

[JimTN]

Exactly -- when Jesus made the batch of wine it was unfermented to begin with!  And it was immediately taken to the "ruler of the feast," it didn't sit around for the time required to ferment -- so again, I side with Sister White's statement that the "wine" that Jesus made was the pure juice of the grapes.  Others can believe differently if they wish, but I just can't see Jesus supplying something the Devil loves to see people drinking!

 

Back to earthquakes -- when the Big Quake hit San Francisco Sister White clearly wrote that it was a punishment/judgment from God -- but she wasn't here when Katrina hit New Orleans (the center for Mardi Gras & voodoo religions), so did any Adventists write that it was God's judgment flooding/destroying the area?  When I wrote that I was glad to see the Napa winery wine barrels fallen over and smashed on the ground, it should be easy for spiritually discerning Adventists to realize I'm not being "mean," I'm seeing the situation as God sees it -- and He does NOT approve of people running businesses that provide any form of alcohol to the public!

 

Have you people read the story of Charles Chiniquy?  The Catholic priest who got really upset seeing his church approve of rum & alcohol drinking and he had a young mother who had been drinking and dropped her baby onto the stone floor of her home and killed it?  Then Chiniquy became a Protestant preacher and was there when the young lawyer Abraham Lincoln came into a court case against several Jesuits and won the case?

 

Any teaching that approves of ANY drinking of ANY form of alcohol is a slippery slope, and should not be endorsed by anyone in the SDA church.

 

And I seriously doubt if Jesus endorsed it by making it back there at that wedding.

[Tom Wetmore]

I wouldn't be too sure about that.  Apparently if he was opposed to drinking fermented wine, he did not make it very well known by his words or actions.  Even he acknowledged the perception others had of him, without refuting or denying it:

 

"For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine; and you say, 'He has a demon.' The Son of man has come eating and drinking; and you say, 'Behold, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!'" - Luke 7:33-34.

 

Notice carefully the context.  Jesus said that John neither ate bread nor drank wine, but Jesus did both and even did it with sinners and was accused of being a glutton and drunkard for having done so.  Jesus own words.  I guess it wasn't a big issue for him.  On your point of endorsing the drinking of wine at the wedding, Jesus had opportunity to set the record straight on wine drinking, but apparently didn't.  It really doesn't matter whether he drank the wine himself, he hung out those who did and said nothing.  But apparently some observers of his every move at least though he was drinking too.  

 

​Jim, I know you really want to believe that this sort of gritty reality of Scripture is somehow not what it seems to be, an inconvenient truth, but it is what it is.  I am with you on this idea that drinking is not a good idea, but don't diminish our credibility as people of the Book by trying to make Scripture say something that simply isn't there. 

[Gregory Matthews]

JimTN said:

. . . so the Lord had 17 years to "reprimand" her for writing a LIE into the best book on this planet ever written about the life of Christ, because if she wrote that he wine at the wedding that Jesus made was just the "pure juice of the grape," then God had 17 years to give her a vision to correct that error--but none was given as far as we know!

 

Jim, I assume that your reference to EGW came from The Desire of Ages, page 149, where she did say that the wine that Christ made was the "pure juice of the grape.  It should be clear that when she said that, her point of reference was unfermented grape juice.

 

I take issue with your "reprimand her for writing a LIE."  Of course, you do not believe that EGW wrote a lie and you are not suggesting that she did.  A "lie" is more than an error.  It is an intentional attempt to deceive.  AS my dictionary says:  "lie: A false statement or piece of information deliberately presented as being true. . . Anything meant to deceive. . ."    The issue, Jim, is not whether or not EGW lied.  It is whether or not she was wrong.

 

To answer this question, I suggest that you consider what she said in SELECTED MESSAGES, VOL. 1.

 

Page 37:  " . . .the words I employ in describing what I have seen are my own, unless they be those spoken to me by an angel,. . ."

 

Page 37:  "In regard to infallibility, I never claimed it; God alone is infallible.. .. ."

 

Page 38:   Here EGW was charged with error.  God did not correct.  She states that what she wrote was not a revelation form god but simply her human opinion.

 

Page 39:  Another statement that what she writes are often simply "common thoughts" and not a revelation from God.

 

Jim, if you think that God would correct any error that she wrot, you simply do not understand what she said.

 

EGW held the ultimate standard to be the Bible, by which her writings were to be judged.  AS a human, she did express common thoughts and God did not correct her.

 

Jim, do not put words into my mouth.  I happen to believe that at the wedding feast, Christ did turn the water into grape juice.  But, I see considerable error in your response to Tom.  It is that to which I respond.   You will note:  I did not accuse you of intentional deceit.