Here are two posts that illustrate a point of concern with hobby theology and private interpretations far too often encountered within fundamentalist adventism.
http://www.sdanet.org/archive/recent/0068.htmlI agree with you that building our doctrines by piling up proof texts
regardless of their content is at least problematic. In fact, the very
reason we give for building our doctrines that way -- "line upon line, here
a little, there a little" -- is a good example of the very thing.
I have sometimes mentioned in Sabbath School classes or other discussions
with fellow members that the proof text from which we take that
instruction, i.e., Isa 28:10, in context seems to say the very opposite of
our familiar interpretation. Instead of God's direction to learn by taking
a little here and a little there, the context seems to show it instead as a
consequence that comes upon God's people (especially the priests and
prophets) who are drunk, careless, and refuse to hear His word. It is to
those who would *not* hear that the word of the Lord becomes "precept upon
precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line." See the
whole chapter, and especially Isaiah 28:11-13.
My New American Standard version has an interesting note about verses 10
and 13. Where we read "precept upon precept... line upon line..." the
original language has a short, repetitive sound which resembles baby talk,
as if those people have failed to heed God's word, and as a result their
understanding and their judgment has become meaningless babbling. Today we
might say that when they refused to hear, God made his word to be just
"blah-blah-blah" to them.
So I don't use that passage as direction for how to study the Bible. But
neither have I ever seem to get anywhere with my friends about it. I've
felt like my comments have just sailed past my friends' attention without
hitting anything.
http://www.sdanet.org/archive/recent/0092.html I am tempted to blame Ellen White for our over-use of the Isaiah text,
but I have recently found it used also by Charismatic and independent
conservative churches, so I am probably wrong. Her use no doubt
popularised it among us. It is, of course, an excellent verse for
biblicists of any kind. The phrase "to the law and the testimony" is
also problematic, as it seems to be a criticism directed to Isaiah's
opponents, who will not accept any message unless it is already written
in Scripture. It may, in context, be a denial of prophetic preaching
rather than a defense of Scriptural authority.
Despite our pride in having a 'real' prophet, I have found that in
general most SDAs are very wary of the idea - or, more correctly, the
practice - of God still speaking. We tend, apart from our position on
Ellen White, to be more comfortable with deism than with the Hebrew idea
of a God who is always ready to communicate directly. Perhaps that is
why we like to apply the text from Joel solely to Ellen White rather
than looking forward to (or even anticipating) God pouring out his gifts
on all and sundry. Having so many prophets and visions just would not
find any place to fit in the usual SDA program.
Just for interest, the words from Isaiah are "tsaw latsaw, tsaw latsaw,
qaw laqaw, qaw laqaw, ze'eyr sham, ze'eyr sham". Tsaw is apparently
meaningless in Hebrew; qaw means 'measuring line'; and ze'eyr is assumed
to mean 'little', but it is used only one other time, in Job 36:2 where
it means 'a short time'; and sham is 'there' or 'then'. That Isaiah
goes on to speak of stammering and of speaking in foreign languages
makes it very unlikely that these words were meant to convey anything as
important as a major hermeneutic rule.
