The three 'new light 'views and the dangers of.

[8thdaypriest]

16 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Ive got news for you. Samuel B is NOT often quoted in SDA circles, and neither is Isaiah 66, just because Adventists put the Sabbath in the future New Earth. To say “What they do NOT like to admit, is that it puts the "New Moon" festival there too,” is to say something that is nowhere near true.

This phrase “in Adventist circles,” hits me as a phrase wherein one can see pre-set notions and generalizations, set in antagonism, in order to pink-slip an entire group of people; who in the sense of how the phrase was used, do not deserve it. Use of this phrase “in Adventist circles” finds a place to nest in the never-ending vagaries talked about by critics against the groups beliefs, character and good name. I think it is quite disparaging to use this kind of phrase as a part of how to “prove” some favored theological snippet about “Adventist circles”.

Isa 66:22-23 is actually NOT “often used “ by Adventists to “prove” the Sabbath. Rather, it is mostly used, almost parenthetically, to bring forward the idea of the Sabbath, “the seventh-day Sabbath,” and how it constitutes an “eternal institution,” if you will. The text of Isa 66:22-23 is not really needed, or “typically” used to prove the Sabbath,” or to establish the doctrine, thereof. Certainly, over a number of years as a literature evangelist; I did not once use this to show or prove or explain the seventh-day sabbath doctrine to anyone.

While an entire, separate study or thread could be started for Isa 66, it is sufficient, for now, in this thread, to simply say that your post completely misrepresents this text, and the Adventist Church intentions, and how the average Adventist would use it in their doctrinal formations and in their understanding of the seventh-day sabbath. Certainly, no Adventist I know of or knew of would use this text, merely to “prove” the sabbath to anyone. Obviously therefore, Adventists don’t have to worry about “inadvertently” getting stuck on dragging the “new moons and feasts” with them all the way to their current practices regarding the sabbath.

The general language that Isaiah uses here is simply evidence of this text as referring to “the new heavens and earth,” and how these would have been established if the nation of the Jews had accepted it’s divine destiny.

Could it be that your thoughts on this would be better directed at someone else, instead of “Adventist circles?”

 

 

Well.  Guess you TOLD me.  Ho hum . . . .

Maybe I can just say that I REMEMBER Isa. 66:22-23 being used to teach the eternal nature of the 7th Day Sabbath, and the 10 Commandments.  I left the official SDA denomination back in 1996 when I was 48.

[Ron Amnsn]

3 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Like I said above, there's nothing in scripture that tells us to call it the ten words.

Oh, you were looking for an explicit command in English that says, "Thou shalt refer to this document as the 'Ten Words' " ?

[Ron Amnsn]

21 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

There isnt one, is there? neither does a "command" like that exist in any other language.

You're right, there's no "command" like that.  There's only the fact that Moses called them the Ten Words.  I guess you can call them whatever you want, depending on how comfortable you are with men tampering with the meaning of God's Word.

[Ron Amnsn]

19 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

I would also disagree that these three items are "new light views" as they have been around for a long time.

I'm with you on that, Wanderer.  Two of the three items are truths much older than the SDA denomination.

[8thdaypriest]

On 8/24/2017 at 5:52 PM, The Wanderer said:

Like I said above, there's nothing in scripture that tells us to call it the ten words.

There is nothing in ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS of the Scriptures, that tells us to call it "the Ten Words". 

[8thdaypriest]

I wonder what percentage of those posting here are still-attending members of the SDA church.  Does anyone know?

When I post here, am I seen as a "wolf" trying to scatter and devour the sheep of the TRUE "fold" (the Seventh-day Adventist Church), because I do not believe our God is "three beings", and I do believe the "Lord's Feasts" (without killing animal sacrifices) will continue forever, to commemorate the great things our God has done for us. 

[Stan]

There are folks I have viewed as wolves, you are not one of those.  You are upfront and honest, you present logic, and are not trying to scam people or their tithes away.

[8thdaypriest]

They are NOT just "Jewish feasts".  They are the LORD's Feasts.  

Calling them "Jewish Feasts" assigns them to an obsolete system (so far as Christians are concerned), separating them from us, as something we are not obligated to perform or participate in.  Mainline Christian denominations use this reasoning to put the 7th-day Sabbath in this same category of "interesting, but no longer required.  This because the Sabbath of the 7th-day was the first of HIS feasts, commanded by Yahweh, through Moses. 

Levisitus 23:1  "And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying"

verse 2  "Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them:`The feasts of the LORD, which you shall proclaim to be holy convocations, these are My feasts."

verse 3  "Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, a holy convocation.  You shall do no work on it; it is the Sabbath of the LORD in all your dwellings." 

COMMENT:  Interesting that the 7th-day Sabbath is the first of the LORD's "feasts".  

verse 4   "These are the feasts of the LORD, holy convocations which you shall proclaim at their appointed times."

verse 37 "These are the feasts of the LORD which you shall proclaim to be holy convocations,

verse 44  "So Moses declared to the children of Israel the feasts of the LORD."

[8thdaypriest]

There have been long discussions on the Feast keeping, and on the nature of God (as three beings, as one being who manifests as three, and as one being with a "son").

I'm not aware of a long discussion on a 2520 "day" prophecy.  Maybe there is one.

Another topic introduced by the video, is his concern that false doctrine is dividing the true "flock".  

And yet another topic is the use of EGW writings to guide the "flock".  That one has a whole forum category. 

Here's a question:

Is it always a BAD THING to "scatter the flock"?   Could it possibly be in God's plan, to scatter, so the flock does not become too solidified around a rigid structure of doctrine and leadership?  

[8thdaypriest]

4 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I wonder what percentage of those posting here are still-attending members of the SDA church.  Does anyone know?

 

Found post where moderator GM estimated 1/3 - 1/3 - 1/3.  midstream SDA,   fringe SDA   and   non-SDA

[the Captain '98]

Indeed, the Sabbath  is a special test for this time but remember that it has a twin, the Marriage.  These  two are indissoluble twins that God has instituted in Eden. An attack on one in an attack to the other and satan has been working ever since to obliterate or destroy these twins. He attacks the Sabbath with a spurious one e.g. Sunday, and he attacks the Marriage by an obliterated one, e.g. Same Sex-Marriage. So, Law enforced Sunday Observance is equal to Law enforced  Same Sex-Marriage. Sunday Law = Sodomy Law (Same Sex-Marriage) and either or both are said to be the MARK of the Beast. 

God made Man (Adam & Eve) in His own image thus the Marriage (1 Man-XY and 1 Woman-XX). The image of Satan is an obliteration of the image of God in Man, thus the LGBT, Same Sex-Marriage (man-XY and man-XY, or woman-XX and woman-XX) and polygamy. This is the image of the beast of Revelation 14:9 that we are warned not to worship so that supporting, allowing, promoting, condoning or practicing LGBT, Same Sex-Marriage is tantamount to worshiping the image of the beast.  Receiving Same sex-Marriage Certificates is receiving the Mark of the Beast in your hands while while supporting, promoting, condoning and the like of LGBT, SSM is receiving the Mark on your foreheads. Take note that the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of SSM on June 2015 and in Germany on June 2017 and some other countries, thus it is said to be currently enforced  by Law.

It is true that the ORGANIZED SDA church is a peculiar people of God called out of the world to preach the everlasting gospel to the world but NOT anymore because the GC SDA church failed as the Jewish nation did. Sister EGW has expressed her feelings that the GC has ceased to be the voice of God sometime during her lifetime and that is TRUE today, the GC has ceased to be the voice of God since 2012 when it failed on the TEST on the Sabbath's twin, the Marriage (see www.lastcountdown.org/twins).

It is said that the Church has in it the wheat and the tares together. And there are true and sincere people in the Church which God is calling out from the organized GC SDAC and be separate because the SDAC has gone in the way of Rome (see the article "Mark of the Beast" on www.whitecloudfarm.org). This is the Final  Loud Cry of the 3rd Angel of Rev. 13 that the Other Angel of Rev. 18 joins with. The warning is given, "come out of her, ( babylon, i.e. all organized churches/religions including the SDAC, be separate) My people that ye may not partake of her plagues...." 

[the Captain '98]

13 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Welcome to the forum Captain 98. I hope you will find somthing here that will "lift you it " and encourage you in our Lord.

You have talked here about a very controversial topic. I find it very upsetting that you would say online such defamatory and hateful branding irons bout people who have different sexual orientation. I believe that these comments are harsh and hateful ; or, atleast the promote aggression   towards  and every time we indulge in this type of PUBLIC talking about gays, blacks, etc that we are guilty of putting them directly into harms way, and do absolutely nothing to portray to the world how God seeks to relate with, or to LGBTQ< SSM< etc. Your posting on this gives a terrible view of Rev 18:4 which is  somthing I think needs addressing in next post. I just wanted to get this comment posted for now to let people know that the Church has no agreement with what you said, or how you said, about LGBTQ. You gave an anti_biblical view of LGBQ and how God sees LGBTQ. I very rarely speak about this kind of subject online or publically, because of the hateful nature of your post I decided it was a time to say somthing

I believe that God does not hate anyone. And my post is not harsh or hateful. What God hates is SIN, and Same sex-Marriage is SIN as a result of LGBTQ practices. Remember that it was in the same situation that God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. And i will shout out loud abroad in this forum that LGBTQ, SSM is satan's obliteration of the IMAGE of God, the Creator, in Man. Thus LGBTQ, SSM is said to be the IMAGE of the beast of Rev. 14:9 that we are warned not to worship. If any one in this forum or any one who reads this who is practicing LGBT/SSM or promotes, support, condones it, repent and return to God in the way He created you lest He will consume you with His wrath as He has done in Sodom. God loves everyone and does not want anyone to be lost but if you are unrepentant and choose to stay in sin, you will lost your soul. 

[the Captain '98]

4 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

Theories such as this are hopeless, and patently false. You can shout as long as you want, but it wont cover your hateful vindictive doctrine. Whether its with a group or an individual. God's character is more often smeared by liars and  thiefs. How come you dont talk about them like this? (Thieves, as in, people who steal God's glory to themselves, while they cherry pick who God hates, and who we are to deny God's grace to. )

As i said, God loves everyone. What He hate is SIN. And if you cling to that sin or this sin and not let it go, God's grace does not work for you, you will be doomed to His Wrath to come because what God will destroy is SIN and if you cling to it, you will be destroyed with it....Note that Jesus died to save us FROM our sins NOT to save us IN our sins.

[JoeMo]

On 8/26/2017 at 11:48 AM, 8thdaypriest said:

Is it always a BAD THING to "scatter the flock"

I don't think so.  The Bible and EGW talk about a "shaking".  My question is are true believers shaken into or shaken out of the corporate denomination?  Are all believers  eventually shaken into an anonymous body of believers, regardless of their denominational affiliation?

[the Captain '98]

4 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

A False Message

For years I have borne my testimony to the effect that when any arise claiming to have great light, and yet advocating the tearing down of that which the Lord through His human agents has been building up, they are greatly deceived, and are not working along the lines where Christ is working. Those who assert that the Seventh-day Adventist churches constitute Babylon, or any part of Babylon, might better stay at home. Let them stop and consider what is the message to be proclaimed at this time. In place of working with divine agencies to prepare a people to stand in the day of the Lord, they have taken their stand with him who is an accuser of the brethren, who accuses them before God day and night. Satanic agencies have been moved from beneath, and they have inspired men to unite in a confederacy of evil, that they may perplex, harass, and cause of the people of God great distress.  {TM 36.2}

The Remnant Church Not Babylon [REVIEW AND HERALD, AUGUST 22 TO SEPTEMBER 12, 1893.]

I have been made very sad in reading the pamphlet that has been issued by Brother S. [SEE APPENDIX.] and by those associated with him in the work he has been doing. Without my consent, they have made selections from the Testimonies, and have inserted them in the pamphlet they have published, to make it appear that my writings sustain and approve the position they advocate. In doing this they have done that which is not justice or righteousness. Through taking unwarrantable liberties they have presented to the people a theory that is of character to deceive and destroy. In times past many others have done this same thing, and have made it appear that the Testimonies sustained positions that were untenable and false.  {TM 32.3}

There is but one church in the world who are at the present time standing in the breach, and making up the hedge, building up the old waste places; and for any man to call the attention of the world and other churches to this church, denouncing her as Babylon, is to do a work in harmony with him who is the accuser of the brethren. The whole world is filled with hatred of those who proclaim the binding claims of the law of God, and the church who are loyal to Jehovah must engage in no ordinary conflict. . .Those who have any realization of what this warfare means, will not turn their weapons against the church militant, but with all their powers will wrestle with the people of God against the confederacy of evil. {OFC 85.1}

Those who start up to proclaim a message on their own individual responsibility, who, while claiming to be taught and led of God, still make it their special work to tear down that which God has been for years building up, are not doing the will of God. Be it known that these men are on the side of the great deceiver. Believe them not. {OFC 85.2}

Those proclaiming the church is Babylon divert money from a channel of usefulness into a channel of evil.--Those who advocate error, will say, "The Lord saith, when the Lord hath not spoken." They testify to falsehood, and not to truth. If those who have been proclaiming the message that the church is Babylon, had used the money expended in publishing and circulating this error, in building up, instead of tearing down, they would have made it evident that they were with the people whom God is leading.

If those who have done this kind of work, had felt the necessity of answering the prayer of Christ that He offered to His Father just previous to His crucifixion,--that the disciples of Christ might be one as He was one with the Father,--they would not be wasting the means intrusted to them, and so greatly needed to advance the truth. They would not be wasting precious time and ability in disseminating error, and thus necessitate the devoting of the laborer's time to counteracting and quenching its influence. A work of this character is inspired not from above, but from beneath.--TM 43, 44. {PaM 31.2}

Those statements are true AS LONG AS the organized SDAC remains loyal to the Lord. Did she said that the SDAC will NEVER be Babylon or will belong to it? the bitter truth is that the GC SDAC failed her test and has gone in the way of Rome, it ceased to be the Church Militant as an organization. The Lord has a remnant (those who sigh and cry of the abominations that are being done in the Church) out of this remnant church who chose to be separate and are still loyal the Lord Jesus Christ/ Alnitak. Consider the things that are being done inside the GC SDAC, she is also drunk of the cup of Rome. Can you not see the abominations that are being done inside the church? LGBT tolerance, women ordination, etc? Open your eyes my friend and recognize the Voice of God in Orion (www.lastcountdown.org) and buy yourself of eye salves that you may see. Yes, God has a militant Church in this last hour of this Earth's history, BUT it is not the GC organized SDAC church anymore.

[Ron Amnsn]

6 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

A False Message
{TM 36.2}

The Remnant Church Not Babylon [REVIEW AND HERALD, AUGUST 22 TO SEPTEMBER 12, 1893.]
{TM 32.3}
{OFC 85.1}
{OFC 85.2}
{PaM 31.2}

Just in the interest of meaningful discourse, it would be good to include the dates of the EGW quotations as you did for one quotation.  In some of the quotations it sounds like EGW was writing about specific people, specific events, and even specific pamphlets, so those statements may not be applicable to things that happened later.  The quotation from 1893 was written 22 years before EGW died, 124 years prior to today. 

The SDA church was undeniably different at the time EGW was writing than the SDA denomination is today.  For instance, today the SDA church is a legal corporation, which is a legal entity that has the rights of an individual where no individual actually exists -- a bit of legal fiction which seems quite normal to us.  The SDA corporation, which did not exist when EGW wrote those statements, now has a trademark on the name "Seventh-day Adventist", and that name legally refers to a different entity (the corporation) than existed at the time EGW was writing.

[8thdaypriest]

I just can't get very involved in discussions where EGW is quoted for validation of a doctrinal position.  I have come so far from that.  No one outside the SDA denomination is going to be convinced of any truth because EGW endorsed it. 

[LifeHiscost]

48 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I just can't get very involved in discussions where EGW is quoted for validation of a doctrinal position.  I have come so far from that.  No one outside the SDA denomination is going to be convinced of any truth because EGW endorsed it. 

For those who are satisfied to wend their way through the scriptures themselves, during one of the most horrendous periods of history as we know it, before the end of time, with no assurance that our Father will give us at least as much extra help as He gave earlier people in history through the help of prophets, seems untenable to me. At least shortsighted when considering the extent of spiritualism permeating our society today, of which the evil one has been allowed to extend his powers of deceit since his time on the earth is short.

8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour....1 Peter 5

4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.....

2 Corinthians 4

I need all the help I can get.

 

God is Love!~Jesus Loves!  

 

[8thdaypriest]

3 hours ago, LifeHiscost said:

For those who are satisfied to wend their way through the scriptures themselves, during one of the most horrendous periods of history as we know it, before the end of time, with no assurance that our Father will give us at least as much extra help as He gave earlier people in history through the help of prophets, seems untenable to me. At least shortsighted when considering the extent of spiritualism permeating our society today, of which the evil one has been allowed to extend his powers of deceit since his time on the earth is short.

God is Love!~Jesus Loves!  

 

So long as SDAs are kept "busy" with dueling EGW quotations, they are not searching the Scriptures. 

Why would the LORD not help believers MORE (not less) as we approach the end of things?  The darker the world around us, the brighter the "Light" shines to lead our way.  JMO 

[Gregory Matthews]

Way back in this thread, Ron Amnson said in the quote below:

That is the truth.  The "Spirit of Prophecy" class that I took was taught by a man who later headed up the White Estate.  What Ron said below is how he taught the class and to be specific, he taught that the basic SDA doctrines were hammered out in the five (5) Sabbath Conferences.

 

When I took the required "Spirit of Prophecy" class at an SDA college, it was made very clear that EGW's gift was never used to determine points of doctrine.  Points of doctrine were always determined by studying the Bible directly.

[JoeMo]

8 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

If people are going to be accused just because they compare and contrast EGW quotes, ; which very often clarify Bible points, just as "commentaries and the like that you use Jesus did enjoin us to "come let us reason together"-

There is a difference between how most students use commentaries and how some SDA's use EGW.  Most people indeed use commentaries to augment or clarify their understanding of scripture; and feel free to believe or not believe them.  Some of the more conservative and historic saints in the SDA church put EGW's writings on par with scripture.  I have even heard some say that it IS scripture.  Some people here have occasionally used EGW to refute a posted scripture.

Don't get me wrong - I have nothing against EGW.  Her writings have helped clarify some questionable points in scripture for me.  She was just as inspired as many other pioneers of Protestantism.  BUT ... IMHO, she was dead wrong about some stuff; so again IMHO, she is NOT an infallible prophet.  She would probably roll over in her grave if she knew what the White Estate and the denomination have turned her into.

[LifeHiscost]

11 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

So long as SDAs are kept "busy" with dueling EGW quotations, they are not searching the Scriptures. 

Why would the LORD not help believers MORE (not less) as we approach the end of things?  The darker the world around us, the brighter the "Light" shines to lead our way.  JMO 

God gave Moses to lead the people out of Egypt. When there arose those who flagrantly opposed him causing them to wander in the wilderness for forty years as opposed to the 11 days it would have taken them had they given heed to God's choice , did that make Moses any less inspired by God? We today have the same ability to pay attention to God's choice of spiritual guidance or wander in the wilderness here on this earth, with the possibility of permanently excluding ourselves from our heavenly home.

God is Love!~Jesus saves!  

 

[Ron Amnsn]

On 8/25/2017 at 9:36 PM, The Wanderer said:

Again, what text in the Bible tells us, beyond all doubt,  that Moses said that?

I think we can agree that Moses spoke and wrote in Hebrew, not English.

On 8/24/2017 at 11:29 AM, Ron Amnsn said:

The term "ten commandments" appears in English translations of Scripture in only three verses--  Exodus 34:28, Deut. 4:13, and Deut. 10:4.   In all three verses the Hebrew says "seret ha debarim".  The word seret means "ten" and ha debarim means "the words".

When Moses wrote what has been translated into English as "ten commandments", the Hebrew words that Moses used were "seret ha debarim" (transliterated into English).  We can determine the meaning of those Hebrew words by how those same words are used and translated into English elsewhere in Scripture.

I don't think there's any dispute about the meaning of "seret" -- it means "ten" everywhere it is use in the Old Testament.

In the Old Testament the words "ha debarim" are translated as "the words" and also as "the matters", "the things", or "the events" when it is referring in each context to the words that came immediately before.  I think the most relevant usage of "ha debarim" would be in the passage (that I think you mentioned earlier) at the beginning of the story of God speaking the Ten Words.  Moses uses "ha debarim" in Exodus 20:1 which is translated as "words" in every English translation I have available "And God spoke all these words:"  It makes sense that Moses would use the same term in the story of God giving the Ten Words that he uses later in the Torah when referring back to those Ten Words that God spoke that day.

[Ron Amnsn]

1 hour ago, The Wanderer said:

Ron; it would be nice if you supplied specific references for such claims. Right now, everyone just has to take your say-so and your interpretation thereof, and just "trust" that your interpretation here is correct.

I don't expect anyone here to just trust me.  I guess I expect people to do their own research rather than take my word for it.  You went to Strongs.  That's not a bad place to start, although it lumps together all the different forms of the root word dabar and gives the English translations derived from how the KJV translators translated the word rather than from what the words actually mean in Hebrew.

I used the Logos Bible Study software to search using Hebrew characters because I was interested in finding the same form of dabar that Moses used when talking about the "ten commandments".  Logos found 134 results in 132 verses for ha debarim in each of several Hebrew texts of the Bible.  Because we were interested in how Moses used the words, I initially looked only at the results that occur in the Torah:  Gen 15:1; Gen 20:8; Gen 22:1, 20; Gen 24:66; Gen 29:13; Gen 39:7; Gen 40:1; Gen 43:7; Gen 44:6; Gen 48:1;  Ex 4:15, 20; Ex 18:19; Ex 19:6-7; Ex 20:1; Ex 24:3, 8; Ex 34:1, 27-28; Ex 35:1; Lev 8:36; Num 14:39; Num 16:31; Deut 1:1, 18, 44; Deut 4:9, 13, 30; Deut 5:22; Deut 6:6; Deut 9:10; Deut 10:2, 4; Deut 12:28; Deut 28:14; Deut 30:1; Deut 31:1, 28; and Deut 32:45-46.  For the English translation of ha debarim I used the Lexham Hebrew-English Interlinear Bible in conjunction with the ESV and NASB versions in English.

The literal translations from Hebrew never translate ha debarim as "commandments" because that isn't what "dabar" means in Hebrew.  The more traditional English translations translate ha debarim as "commandments" only in the three verses where established English tradition requires that it be rendered as "the ten commandments" rather than "the ten words".

[Ron Amnsn]

2 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Without having to put on the "original language expert mask" it can be seen from these figures that the context of the Englsih rendering of "ten commandments" is much wider than just insisting we must all use the term "ten words." Obviously, the "ten commandments" are consisting of "words" but those words are used very specifically to give us commandments. In Exodus 19:6, for eg God said: "These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel," and it can be seen in the text that God was referring to the ten commandments, not the ten words. "Words" does not give the text a correct context, such as use of the term "commandments" can do.

Chronology is important.  When God spoke to Moses in Exodus 19:6 Moses had not yet heard the "ten commandments" (as far as we know).  The words that Moses heard and which he was told to repeat to the Israelites were the words God used to invite the Israelites to become his special people and to enter into covenant with Him.   Neither Moses nor the Israelites knew at that time what the terms of that covenant would be.  Moses was to relay the invitation (rather than the covenant document) to the Israelites.