Blessed Trinity, an Unblessed Monstrosity???

[wicklunds]

She knew the correct order of the Godhead as it is in this passage:

Thus was presented to the prophet's vision the great and solemn day when the characters and the lives of men should pass in review before the Judge of all the earth, and to every man should be rendered "according to his works." The Ancient of Days is God the Father. Says the psalmist: "Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever Thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God." Psalm 90:2. It is He, the source of all being, and the fountain of all law, that is to preside in the judgment. And holy angels as ministers and witnesses, in number "ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands," attend this great tribunal. {GC 479.2}

"And, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him. And there was given Him

480

dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve Him: His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away." Daniel 7:13, 14. The coming of Christ here described is not His second coming to the earth. He comes to the Ancient of Days in heaven to receive dominion and glory and a kingdom, which will be given Him at the close of His work as a mediator. It is this coming, and not His second advent to the earth, that was foretold in prophecy to take place at the termination of the 2300 days in 1844. Attended by heavenly angels, our great High Priest enters the holy of holies and there appears in the presence of God to engage in the last acts of His ministration in behalf of man--to perform the work of investigative judgment and to make an atonement for all who are shown to be entitled to its benefits. {GC 479.3}

Dennis

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: "This was what the whole alpha/ Kellogg/ pantheism heresy was all about, . . ."

Dennis, I think you misunderstan pantheism. Pantheism places God, in realilty, in the tree, flower, or frog. It is unrelated to the Trinity. Now, if I have misspoke on this, I am certain that others will correct me.

Re: "In His divinity, Christ possessed the power to break the bonds of death. {DA 785.3}"

I agree. But, Dennis, this is not related the this discussion of the Trinity. As you have stated, one can be anti-Trinitarian and blieve that Christ was divine.

Well, I do not want to hijack the thread, so get back to discussing from the Biblical standpoint.

[archierieus]

Gregory, quite honestly this thread is getting uncivil. It is becoming uncomfortable to continue. I do want to post some more Bible references, but much more than an "edge" has developed here. I am doing my best to ignore it, but it is getting difficult to focus.

I also must say that this reminds me of Jesus' test of a teacher and teachings, "By their fruits ye shall know them."

Regards, Dave

[wicklunds]

Quote:

---

Gregory Matthews said:

Re: "This was what the whole alpha/ Kellogg/ pantheism heresy was all about, . . ."

Dennis, I think you misunderstan pantheism. Pantheism places God, in realilty, in the tree, flower, or frog. It is unrelated to the Trinity. Now, if I have misspoke on this, I am certain that others will correct me.

Re: "In His divinity, Christ possessed the power to break the bonds of death. {DA 785.3}"

I agree. But, Dennis, this is not related the this discussion of the Trinity. As you have stated, one can be anti-Trinitarian and blieve that Christ was divine.

Well, I do not want to hijack the thread, so get back to discussing from the Biblical standpoint.

---

The trinity has everything to do with the personality and presence of God. This is what the pantheism heresy was about. Read below:

When I first left the State of Maine, it was to go through Vermont and Massachusetts, to bear a testimony against these sentiments. Living Temple contains the alpha of these theories. I knew that the omega would follow in a little while; and I trembled for our people. I knew that I must warn our brethren and sisters not to enter into controversy over the presence and personality of God. The statements made in Living Temple in regard to this point are incorrect. The scripture used to substantiate the doctrine there set forth, is scripture misapplied. {1SM 203.2}

Dennis

[wicklunds]

This trinitarian doctrine that entered our teachings in 1930 was the omega spoken of in the previous caption I posted. She said it would follow in a little while. And sure enough, it did all right. Here we stand, right in the middle of it, noone even caring in the slightest to check it out from the scriptures. Following along after that...

Few can discern the result of entertaining the sophistries

204

advocated by some at this time. But the Lord has lifted the curtain, and has shown me the result that would follow. The spiritualistic theories regarding the personality of God, followed to their logical conclusion, sweep away the whole Christian economy. They estimate as nothing the light that Christ came from heaven to give John to give to His people. They teach that the scenes just before us are not of sufficient importance to be given special attention. They make of no effect the truth of heavenly origin, and rob the people of God of their past experience, giving them instead a false science. {1SM 203.4}

In a vision of the night I was shown distinctly that these sentiments have been looked upon by some as the grand truths that are to be brought in and made prominent at the present time. I was shown a platform, braced by solid timbers--the truths of the Word of God. Some one high in responsibility in the medical work was directing this man and that man to loosen the timbers supporting this platform. Then I heard a voice saying, "Where are the watchmen that ought to be standing on the walls of Zion? Are they asleep? This foundation was built by the Master Worker, and will stand storm and tempest. Will they permit this man to present doctrines that deny the past experience of the people of God? The time has come to take decided action." {1SM 204.1}

The enemy of souls has sought to bring in the supposition that a great reformation was to take place among Seventh-day Adventists, and that this reformation would consist in giving up the doctrines which stand as the pillars of our faith, and engaging in a process of reorganization. Were this reformation to take place, what would result? The principles of truth that God in His wisdom has given to the remnant church, would be discarded. Our religion would be changed. The fundamental principles that have sustained the work for the last fifty years would be accounted as error. A new organization would be established. Books of a new order would be written. A system of intellectual philosophy would be introduced. The founders of this system would go into the cities, and do a

205

wonderful work. The Sabbath of course, would be lightly regarded, as also the God who created it. Nothing would be allowed to stand in the way of the new movement. The leaders would teach that virtue is better than vice, but God being removed, they would place their dependence on human power, which, without God, is worthless. Their foundation would be built on the sand, and storm and tempest would sweep away the structure. {1SM 204.2}

Who has authority to begin such a movement? We have our Bibles. We have our experience, attested to by the miraculous working of the Holy Spirit. We have a truth that admits of no compromise. Shall we not repudiate everything that is not in harmony with this truth? {1SM 205.1}

I hesitated and delayed about the sending out of that which the Spirit of the Lord impelled me to write. I did not want to be compelled to present the misleading influence of these sophistries. But in the providence of God, the errors that have been coming in must be met. {1SM 205.2}

And they say that she is only semi-inspired... She was certainly spot-on right here folks. This is the exact description of the steady progress of apostasy since 1930. Ford, Canright, and all the rest...

The trinity is right smack in the middle of all of it. You can expect many many others to do the same unless you turn the ship around and lead the people to repentance.

Dennis

[archierieus]

I would first like to summarize the Bible passages which I have quoted so far. We see Christ described in the Old Testament primarily, as the One who created this world, and as being 'from eternity,' the I AM:

God (Gen. 1:1)

The Lord (Gen. 2:5)

The Word (Jn. 1:1, 2)

The Word Became Flesh (John 1:14)

I AM THAT I AM (Ex. 3:14; John 8:58)

Jesus (John 8:58)

Emmanuel (Matthew 1:23)

God With Us (Matthew 1:23)

Everlasting (Psalm 90:1, 2; Micah 5:2)

Mighty God (Isaiah 9:6)

Everlasting Father (Isaiah 9:6)

I had left out Gen. 1:1, but upon reflection think that it would be appropriate, since "All things were made" by the Word. (Jn. 1:1)

We see, from these representative passages, that Christ is described in them as the eternal, pre-existent God. Was there some change?

Let's take a look at a couple of references:

“Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death—even death on a cross!” Philippians 2:5 - 8

“I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.”

Psalm 2:7, 8

“God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.” Acts 13:33

“Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.” Romans 1:3, 4

“Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.” John 14:28

Heb 1:1 "God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets,

2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds;

3 who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

4 ¶ having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

5 For to which of the angels did He ever say: "You are My Son, Today I have begotten You"? And again: "I will be to Him a Father, And He shall be to Me a Son"?

6 But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: "Let all the angels of God worship Him."

7 And of the angels He says: "Who makes His angels spirits And His ministers a flame of fire."

8 But to the Son He says: "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your Kingdom.

9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness more than Your companions."

10 And: "You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands.

11 They will perish, but You remain; And they will all grow old like a garment;

12 Like a cloak You will fold them up, And they will be changed. But You are the same, And Your years will not fail."

Gerry has already spoken to the issue of Christ's being 'begotten'. Before commenting on these references, I would like to put them on the thread for response.

Regards, Dave

[wicklunds]

I have a few more texts to post from Ellen White Dave. Sorry to sully up your attempt to prove the unprovable from the words that have proceeded out of the mouth of God, those of which we must live by EVERY one. This must be brought to light by the prophet's pen...

Not a Thread of Pantheism

From Christ all truth radiates. Apart from Christ, science is misleading and philosophy is foolishness. Those who are separated from the Saviour will advance theories which originate with the wily foe. Christ's life stands out as the contrast of all false science, all erroneous theories, all misleading methods. {MM 97.4}

Pretenders will arise with theories that have no foundation in the word of God. We are to hold aloft the banner bearing the inscription, "The commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus." We are to hold the beginning of our confidence firm unto the end. Let no one attempt to dilute truth with a mixture of sophistry. Let no one attempt to tear down the foundation of our faith, or to spoil the pattern by bringing into the web threads of human devising. Not one thread of pantheism is to be drawn into the web. Sensuality, ruinous to soul and body, is always the result of drawing these threads into the web.--Letter 249, 1903. {MM 97.5}

Thanks for the consideration of this...

Dennis

[Gregory Matthews]

Just some comments of what I have observed here:

Dennis appears to me:

1) To be unwilling to focus on the Biblical teaching to the exclusion of anyting else.

In sense he may have a point. As we are discussing the Trinity within a SDA context, there is more that can be considered. But, in another sense it is disappointing that he cannot focus on what the Bible says alone.

2) When is is asked to comment on passages from EGW, whom he claims to accept, he has some strange responses that appear to distort their common meaning.

3) He makes genaralizations that he expects to be accepted without any authorative documentaion or discussion.

e.g. His claim that the Trinity is connected to Pantheism, which reflects a misunderstanding of Pantheism.

It is hard to have a discussion with him. But, I acknowledge that is is doing better in attempting to dialogue with us than what we once saw in him. I commend you for that, Dennis.

[wicklunds]

Quote:

---

Gregory Matthews said:

Just some comments of what I have observed here:

Dennis appears to me:

1) To be unwilling to focus on the Biblical teaching to the exclusion of anyting else.

---

I will not attempt to defend myself. I must mention though, that I refrained from using Ellen White until you did above. If you go back and research this, you will see what I mean.

Quote:

---

Gregory Matthews said:

In (a) sense he may have a point. As we are discussing the Trinity within a SDA context, there is more that can be considered. But, in another sense it is disappointing that he cannot focus on what the Bible says alone.

---

I have said at every attempt of Archierus to quote scripture in defense of trinity that I am open, but I know from personal study that the trinity is not scriptural. But if you will, try as you may...

Quote:

---

Gregory Matthews said:

2) When (Denn?)is is asked to comment on passages from EGW, whom he claims to accept, he has some strange responses that appear to distort their common meaning.

---

I need help seeing this... maybe you would feel up to showing a brother his error?? Is a common meaning always the right one?

Quote:

---

Gregory Matthews said:

3) He makes genaralizations that he expects to be accepted without any authorative documentaion or discussion.

e.g. His claim that the Trinity is connected to Pantheism, which reflects a misunderstanding of Pantheism.

---

Please look back at the Ellen White quote where she refers to the "presence and personality of God". In that context she then refers to the omega of deadly heresies, which I interpret as the introduction of the trinity into the SDA SDA Fund. beliefs, thereby making it mandatory for new believers to accept this heresy prior to baptism.

BTW, did you know that many of the pioneers, including James White, Uriah Smith, and the majority of the others, would not be able to join the church today becasue of this? Does this not strike a note of concern for you brothers and sisters? It ought to way heavily on your heart, if you had any compassion left in you.

Quote:

---

Gregory Matthews said:

It is hard to have a discussion with him. But, I acknowledge that is is doing better in attempting to dialogue with us than what we once saw in him. I commend you for that, Dennis.

---

Typically Greg, I don't have "discussions" in a modern sense where people kick ideas back and forth for the sake of sounding intelligent or philsophical. To me, this is all a facade covering up the real issue, that being a heart of stone. I am sorry that you might feel I am obdurate, or obstinate, or recalcitrant as to what you might see as vital truth. I only seek to cling to truth.

Dennis

[Clio]

Dennis,

Your words and behaviour are very much at odds. I have already told you that I will not respond to sarcasm, disrespect or discourtesy.

You continue in all these things.

You have failed to disprove the concept of the Trinity from Scripture. No matter how you look at it, there are 3 in the Godhead.

You have not been able, to prove from the Bible, what position you DO hold.

You have muddied the water so sufficiently as to make less clear than ever what it is, precisely, you believe.

Clio

[archierieus]

Oops! One more reference I should add to the list previously posted. Colossians 2:8, 9:

"Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily."

[wicklunds]

Quote:

---

archierieus said:

Oops! One more reference I should add to the list previously posted. Colossians 2:8, 9:

"Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily."

---

Hey I like that quote. It says "all the fullness of the GODHEAD bodily."

Thanks Archie,

Dennis

[wicklunds]

Quote:

---

Clio said:

Dennis,

Your words and behaviour are very much at odds. I have already told you that I will not respond to sarcasm, disrespect or discourtesy.

You continue in all these things.

You have failed to disprove the concept of the Trinity from Scripture. No matter how you look at it, there are 3 in the Godhead.

You have not been able, to prove from the Bible, what position you DO hold.

You have muddied the water so sufficiently as to make less clear than ever what it is, precisely, you believe.

Clio

---

(See post

http://adventistforum.com/ubbtreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/197430/Main/197242/#Post197430 )

[Neil D]

I have been following this thread with interest, but I must say....I too grow tired of the little information that is passed off among the disrespect, the lack of rebuttal from that same side, and the insistance that one side is wrong....

It truely grows ....boring...

From Titus, Chapter one, 15 To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted. 16They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good.

This thread, while showing promise, completely fell on it's face...

[wicklunds]

Quote:

---

Neil D said:

It truely grows ....boring...

---

Then you should have no reason to post here from now on...Your reasoning is as unsound as the trinity doctrine itself.

Quote:

---

Neil D said:

From Titus, Chapter one, 15 To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted. 16They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good.

---

This one is obviously applied to those purveyors of the spirit of anti-christ, who in word and deed deny the Father and the Son. And the whole world wondered after the beast.

Dennis

[archierieus]

Having posted several batches of Bible passages pertaining to Christ, at this time I should like to begin the process of examining them in some detail. My preference is to do this in plain English, except where resorting to the Greek or Hebrew provides important information not apparent in the English text. Firstly, then, I turn to John 1:1 - 4:

1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 He was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men."

v. 1, "the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

This would seem to indicate two Divine Beings, in proximity--"the Word was with God." 'with' (Gr. pros, accusative preposition here) meaning, generally, beside, local proximity)

Secondly, 'the Word was God.' Interesting word order in the Greek: 'and God was the Word.' Okay, words placed in order of importance by the writer. Emphasis, then, on the stated fact that the Word, Christ, is God.

"All things were made by Him." The verse is clear: 'all things' made by the Word, that is Christ. Thus, when Gen. 1:1 says that "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," 'God' being the plural of 'eloah', there would seem to appear a perfect harmony with Jn. 1:1. Christ is identified as God in Jn. 1:1, and the Father is also identified in numerous instances as God.

Taking these two passages together, we see the picture of the Father and Christ together creating the heavens and the earth. This would also be consistent with Gen. 1:26, "Let Us make man in Our image."

Jn. 1:4 continues, "In Him was life . . ." The word order in the Greek is, "In Him life was," with the emphasis, again, appearing to be on the fact that in the Word was life. Well, that seems pretty straightforward. Only of the Creator may it be said that "in Him was life." For all created beings, the Bible tells us explicitly that God gives them life. Only of the Creator, God, the Word, may be said, "In Him was life."

I don't want to put too much in one post, so would like to leave this as it is, and welcome response.

Regards, Dave

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Then you should have no reason to post here from now on...Your reasoning is as unsound as the trinity doctrine itself.

---

Actually, I do have one other reason to post here...It is you, Dennis.

After I quoted Titus 1:15, you said-

Quote:

---

This one is obviously applied to those purveyors of the spirit of anti-christ, who in word and deed deny the Father and the Son. And the whole world wondered after the beast.

---

The context of this passage is plainly simple, Dennis. And you are the subject of this passage. You see, you have "claim to know God, but by your actions show that you deny him." Paul has passed judgement upon this type of person. "They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good.".......

May I suggest that you turn your heart to Jesus? I urge you to plead for His mercys, and turn your life and actions to Him who can aboundantly pardon your sins. In return, I suspect that since great mercy will have been shown you, that you display great mercy. Or at least, will temper your tantrums to a much lower leavel having been shown mercy of our Lord and Savior.

[Clio]

It has always fascinated me that Jesus is both the Word and the Life. The very medium of creation is the spoken word, and when humanity was created we were gifted with Words to communicate with the Creator.

Is it any wonder that prayers have power? That it is with authority that proceeds from the very mouth of our Saviour that we are given power over all the powers of darkness to forbid them to work in our lives? (Luke 10:19.)

With you so far Dave, no argument here...

Clio

[wicklunds]

Post deleted by wicklunds

[wicklunds]

Another thing Neil,

If you were truly bored, you would not keep coming back to review what I would reply. You are interested in discouraging me from my initial purpose of this thread, that is to show that the trinity is both unscriptural, unadventist, and not worthy of being on the list of fund. beliefs of the remnant church. If you don't like this, it will not be too difficult for you to find a thread in townhall or some other area to post.

Dennis

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

wicklunds said:

Another thing Neil,

If you were truly bored, you would not keep coming back to review what I would reply. You are interested in discouraging me from my initial purpose of this thread, that is to show that the trinity is both unscriptural, unadventist, and not worthy of being on the list of fund. beliefs of the remnant church. If you don't like this, it will not be too difficult for you to find a thread in townhall or some other area to post. Dennis

---

As usual, you have miss quoted me and taken me out of context...here is what I have said....

Quote:

---

I too grow tired of the

little information

that is passed off among [should be 'along with '] the disrespect, the lack of rebuttal from that same side, and the insistance that one side is wrong....It truely grows ....boring...

---

Dennis, you dont' know how to be positive. You look for the wrongs away from you and don't know to look for the wrongs within you. If you correct the problems within, you would be able to see the positive without....As it is, you can't. Take alook at EVERY one of your posts... you can't say anything nice about anyone....You MUST look for something wrong....

And as a result, you have bankrupted any credibility. Are you truely a 'nice guy'? Who would know???? Surely, none of us here on C/A....

Quote:

---

You are interested in discouraging me from my initial purpose of this thread, that is to show that the trinity is both unscriptural, unadventist, and not worthy of being on the list of fund. beliefs of the remnant church.

---

Then, Dang it, SHOW IT!... quit telling everyone how wrong they are and quit insisting that you are right and give evidence to your arguement. As it is, you have not done anything except show from an occassional SECONDARY source, evidence to substanciate your claims. And your opponents are showing PRIMARY sources to substaciate and rebutt your claims.

At the very least, you are the least prepared to substatiate your claims, and can do nothing but denegrate all here [which Paul has already condemned and claimed that those who do so are "good for nothing"] or you are deliberately here to be a malcontent and to spread your malcontent-ed-ness for all to see....Neither of which does anything for your arguememts....

Get it together or quite wasting our time...

[archierieus]

Next, I look at John 8:58:

“Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I AM.”

The Greek is straightforward here. To the Jews, this statement apparently pushed their buttons. They picked up stones to end Jesus' life. Why? Because apparently they recognized what Jesus had just said--=He claimed to be the eternal, self-existent, pre-existent God. Compare this reference in Ex. 3:14:

“And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.”

To the Jews, this was blasphemy. Why did they want to stone Jesus? "The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God." Jn. 10:33

Was Jesus lying? Of course not. He could claim to be the self-existent, eternal God because He was--and is--such. The words, "I AM" signify ETERNAL existence. The illustration of Melchizedek comes to mnind, "without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life . . ." Heb. 7:3

As a point of interest, the Being Who spoke those words in Ex. 3 was YHWH (the 'tetragrammaton') or Yahweh. THIS IDENTIFIES CHRIST AS YAHWEH!! Most helpful!

Well, enough for now. I look forward to response.

Regards, Dave

[John317]

Dennis,

You are mistaken about many things in your messages.

For instance, you say, "This trinity doctrine initially came into our beliefs as a result of Leroy Froom's response to Protestant (Baptist??) evangelicals Barnhouse and Martin who asked, What do you believe about the trinity??? At these many appointments together, Barnhouse and Martin complained that Ellen White reinforced an Arian view of the Godhead, and produced many copied statements from her writings to "prove" this. As a result of this, our denomination allowed Questions on Doctrine to be written and published and then in 1928 or 1930 had this doctrine added to our fundamental beliefs."

Questions on Doctrine was actually written and published during the early to middle 50s, long after 1928 or 1930.

And it simply is not true that the Trinity doctrine came into SDA beliefs as a result of Leroy Froom or anyone else at that time. (The truth is that Uriah Smith's book, Looking Unto Jesus, was the last publication of any significance by an SDA giving an Arian view of Christ. It was published in 1898, the same year as The Desire of Ages. Smith's book was only printed once and sold very few copies here and in Australia. It clearly advocated a minority viewpoint among SDAs, particularly in light of Ellen White's plain statements in DA opposing the Arian views.)

Since Questions on Doctrine was written and published in the early 1950s, it should be obvious to anyone that it had nothing whatsoever to do with what happened about a quarter of a century prior to its existence.

As for Ellen White teaching an Arian view of the Godhead, anyone who believes she taught such a view hasn't taken into consideration her statements that Christ revealed Himself to Moses at Mt. Horeb as the "I AM"; that it was Christ who gave both the moral and ceremonial law to Israel; and that "in Christ is life, original, unborrowed, and underived." (See DA 52, 307 and PP 366) Please see the Comprehensive Index to the Writings of Ellen White, Vol. 1, pp. 509-512, where many references are given that describe the preincarnate Christ in Old Testament times. Jim

[John317]

Even though I read and admire the King James Version, I don't consider it the inerrant word of God. There is no inerrancy in anything human, including the Bible. Even the ancient Hebrew and Greek manuscripts-- copies of the original writings of the prophets-- are not free from error, as anyone knows who has worked closely with them. No two manuscripts agree completely in every detail. The King James Version also has mistakes which are obvious to anyone who has studied it in depth. At the very least, it contains words that can be misleading to anyone who doesn't realize that the meaning of many of its words has changed since it was first translated over 400 years ago. There's also the fact that since 1611, many more ancient texts have been discovered, many that are far older than those available to the translators of the KJV. We also have gained a great deal more knowledge of the original languages. Therefore, while I consider it my favorite translation, and enjoy reading it every day, I realize how foolish it would be to ignore all the wealth of knowledge of God's word that I gain from studying other translations that take advantage of modern scholarship. I still consider it the most beautiful of translations and the one that I use as my basic text. I simply realize it has its limits, as indeed do all translations, to a lesser or greater degree. Jim

[John317]

Dave,

Here is what you said, "Secondly, 'the Word was God.' Interesting word order in the Greek: 'and God was the Word.' Okay, words placed in order of importance by the writer. Emphasis, then, on the stated fact that the Word, Christ, is God."

I completely agree with your analysis and would only like to add a few thoughts.

First, it may come as a shock to some people to know that just in terms of the rules of Greek grammar, there's nothing wrong with translating those words as, "and the word was a god." Yet while the words could be translated "and the Word was a god," such a translation goes against everything else the Bible teaches and is therefore to be rejected.

Secondly, the Greek words might also be translated correctly as, "... and the Logos was Deity," "and the Word was divine," " and the Word was God Himself," or, as the New English Bible so beautifully puts it, "and what God was, the Word was." I believe the New English Bible got it exactly right. What's being said, then, is that the pre-incarnate Christ had the same nature or essence as the Father from the days of eternity, something that the Bible says in a number of other verses. Jim