HOME CHAT ROOM #1 CHAT ROOM #2 Forum Topics Within The Last 7 Days REGISTER ENTER FORUMS BIBLE SCHOOL CONTACT US

Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine Christian Family Fellowship Forums & Chat Rooms
(formerly Maritime SDA OnLine)
Consisting mainly of both members and friends of the Seventh-day Adventist Church
Welcomes and invites other members and friends of the Seventh-day Adventist Church to join us!

Click Here To Read Legal Notice & Disclaimer
Suggested $20 or Higher Donations Accepted Here to Help Cover the Yearly Expenses of Operating & Upgrading
Donations accepted: Here
Shout Box

Newest Members
Fred88, Christian G, The Wanderer, aarjona, phineas
1289 Registered Users
Forum Stats
1289 Members
118 Forums
8527 Topics
182293 Posts

Max Online: 1283 @ 05/14/17 03:59 PM
Who's OnIine In
Chat Room #1?
Right Click Here & Select "Open in New Tab or Window" to Enter Chat Room #1 or Just Simply Click Here
Join the following presently in Chat Room #1:

Seventh-day Adventist Church In Canada Links
Seventh-day Adventist Church in Canada

Newfoundland & Labrador Mission

Maritime Conference

Quebec Conference

Ontario Conference

Manitoba-Saskatchewan Conference

Alberta Conference

British Columbia Conference

Top Posters (30 Days)
Gary K 113
Alchemy 67
The Wanderer 43
dedication 43
Elle 38
Nadi 34
kland 23
June
Su M Tu W Th F Sa
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30
Featured Member
Registered: 07/16/16
Posts: 128
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
Live Space Station Tracking
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
Last 7 Pictures From Photo Gallery Forums
Remember What God Has Done
Remember The Sabbath
"...whiter than snow..."
A Beautiful Spring Day
Happy Sabbath To All!!
Springtime
Lessons from The Smallest Of Creatures
Who's Online
4 registered (Nadi, Daryl, dedication, 1 invisible), 336 Guests and 5 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Page 3 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#132575 - 04/10/11 10:34 PM Re: Are there contradictions in the writings of EGW? [Re: Mountain Man]
Mountain Man Offline
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2015

20000+ Member
Registered: 10/25/00
Posts: 22078
Loc: Southwest USA
Originally Posted By: Tom
First of all, the angel points out the decision was a struggle. It could only have been a struggle if God was seriously considering an alternative, indicating that His mind hadn't been made up about it.

I find it hard to believe that you, of all people, would even entertain the idea that Jesus was more determined to save and redeem mankind than was the Father. Don't you think the Father and the Son were equally determined to save and redeem mankind? How would the GC have played out if the loyal angels believed the Father argued against implementing the plan of salvation? Satan would have had a heyday with it.
Top
#132578 - 04/10/11 11:10 PM Re: Are there contradictions in the writings of EGW? [Re: Mountain Man]
NJK Project Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Registered: 08/13/05
Posts: 1098
Loc: Laval, Quebec
Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Originally Posted By: NJK Project
M: NJK, we do not see eye to eye as it relates to God's knowledge of the future.

N: This is actually not a matter of seeing ‘eye to eye’. I have yet to see any Scriptural and Direct SOP Revelations support for your view, but indeed simply “maxims and (supposed) truisms”. Your view most logically, outrightly and innately stands against what you are claiming for this SOP Direct Revelation.

I've seen what happens when someone tries to discuss opposing views with you. You are convinced beyond doubt you are right. You are also convinced beyond doubt I am wrong. I see no value in continuing this discussion with you.

Ohhh... keep the blame yourself Mountain Man. Do you not recall what happen in another discussion when I first believed that the resurrected saints or Christ could not have remained on earth for forty day. I strongly believed I was right until conclusive SOP evidence, harmonizable with the Bible was brought forth. You just need to likewise to the same here. So don’t try to blame me if you can’t/won’t and just prefer to expressed your philosophical opinions.

And for ascertaining reasons, and just for the transparent record, what other conversation are your referring to??
_________________________
“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Top
#132579 - 04/11/11 12:06 AM Re: Are there contradictions in the writings of EGW? [Re: Rosangela]
NJK Project Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Registered: 08/13/05
Posts: 1098
Loc: Laval, Quebec
Originally Posted By: Rosangela
I disagree.

Ephesians 1:4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.


An exegetically clarifying point here. The word translated here as “before” (Gr. pro #4253), is syntactically understood to also have the “spatial” meaning of at in this genitive case. (Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond The Basics, 379). So it would thus have the general (prior) meaning of : ‘(priorly, even) at the foundation of the world’. Thus from the time when the plan of salvation was implemented.

Perhaps Paul did not know exactly when that establishment took place, thus the general “at” sense. And that understanding was directly, prophetically specified in e.g., Rev 13:8 which specifies that ‘the Lamb was typologically slain “away from” (Gr. “apo”) the foundation of the world.’ I.e., from the time that Adam and Eve sinned and a typifying Lamb had to be sacrificed. (Cf. Rev 17:8 which also uses the same “apo” preposition to speak of the book of life which includes the names of all those who have been inscribed in it having chosen God’s Salvation going back to that time when it was first implemented. (No Lamb’s Book of Life needed for this Planet before the Fall of Man.)*

Indeed if the Lamb’s Book of Life only became a reality after the Fall, how could Christian be chosen in Chirst (i.e., by God having established Christ as an Atonement) before the Fall, and thus the need for a Sacrificial Lamb, had occurred!

So with all of these applicable internal Biblical specification, it can be concluded that the syntactical rendering of the (genitive case) “pro” in Eph 1:4 should be according to its possible, general, “Spatial” sense.

This syntactical choice, as I have seen many be, is confirmed by what was straightforwardly shown to have transpired in Heaven in this direct revelation in the SOP. I.e., “no way of escape had been made before the Fall of Man.”

It is also significant that EGW speaks of the plan of Redemption after the Fall. Why, as it would chronologically be due, not before if it had been established long before. And furthermore when she does relate it here, it is with all of these expression of ‘agitation, perplexity, troubling-doubt, reluctance, unyeilding, struggle, among the other points raised above depicting this uncertainty and/or refusals to permit.)

*(The extent of the names in that book in the end time context in Rev 17:8 is to include anyone to whom it can be applicable. So e.g., it does not say, any not written there in the past 50 years, as a 60 year old person would be exempt from that judgement. Revelation’s Babylon is indeed the ultimate opposing entity to God on Earth. That is why it was derived from Satan emulating, (probably directly inspired in order to have an earthly power to completely defeat God’s Israel) actions of real king of Babylon (Isa 13:1ff, 14:12-14; 15ff). Satan probably saw by now that if he wanted to oppose God, he needed such a powerful kingdom such as Babylon, that he probably noticed that God was favorably working with for prophetic intents (cf. Dan 2), to innate hate God. So he here sought to inspire it to think that it was above the God of Heaven, or at least plant that seed in them. Indeed Babylon, unlike the Medo-Persian Empire, had a most religious intolerant stance. Even e.g., renaming captured people according to their gods. Medo-Persia let peoples under them freely worship their own Gods, as would also the Greek and the Romans.)
_________________________
“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Top
#132580 - 04/11/11 12:16 AM Re: Are there contradictions in the writings of EGW? [Re: Mountain Man]
NJK Project Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Registered: 08/13/05
Posts: 1098
Loc: Laval, Quebec
Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
I find it hard to believe that you, of all people, would even entertain the idea that Jesus was more determined to save and redeem mankind than was the Father. Don't you think the Father and the Son were equally determined to save and redeem mankind?


In a way, Tom, so do I, given that in our other discussion you say that Christ fully revealed the Father’s Character. I too would like to hear your beliefs here.

I see that God did love* the world however, He just did not see then that the chances of failure were worth the risk. So in the end, Jesus talked Him into yielding and only by having a love for the world was that even possible to occur. One cannot be convinced without threats to do something which they hate, even if there is much risk involved. Love for Jesus, seeing how this greatly saddened Him probably also served to win Him out.

*By the way, pertinent to this discussion. John 3:16 does not, as commonly rendered ‘“Soooo (much)” Loved the world...’, but “so” as in the sense of: “in this similar way” (Gr. Adverb houto #3779) and this all is making a retrospective comparison to what God had done in the wilderness with the Salvific snake of Moses (John 3:14, 15).
_________________________
“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Top
#132584 - 04/11/11 05:16 AM Re: Are there contradictions in the writings of EGW? [Re: NJK Project]
NJK Project Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Registered: 08/13/05
Posts: 1098
Loc: Laval, Quebec
The fact that it is also that: “Jesus was communing with His Father” {EW 149.2} implies to me, its definition of: “Communicate intimately with; be in a state of heightened, intimate receptivity” that: (a) this conversation was indeed of a first, non-previously discussed, instance and (b) that it was Jesus who was having to come “in tune” with the Father’s concern here (e.g., a person communing with nature), though Jesus was ‘yielded to’ in the end. It instead could have been said that ‘The Father and Jesus were communing with each other’. That ‘Jesus’ receptivity’ notion here is corroborated by the related three attempts before the Father’s mercy-filled ‘yielding’ occurred.

And the non-related reciprocal communing, though the Father did yield to Jesus, further indicates to me that it was indeed entirely an act of undeserved mercy towards fallen man. The Father really did not have to yield His position, indeed by Himself seeming to have become receptive, while He manifestly simply okayed Jesus’ request. Indeed it was not said that the Father had summoned Jesus to discuss this, as it should have been if that mercy option was His deemed best choice, but that Jesus went to the Father to discuss this.
_________________________
“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Top
#132592 - 04/11/11 01:57 PM Re: Are there contradictions in the writings of EGW? [Re: Mountain Man]
kland Offline
SDA
Active Member 2017

4500+ Member
Registered: 10/28/08
Posts: 4884
Loc: Midland
Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Originally Posted By: kland
E: "Think ye that the Father yielded up His dearly beloved Son without a struggle? No, no. It was even a struggle with the God of heaven, whether to let guilty man perish, or to give His beloved Son to die for him."

N: Of course Mountain Man, we don’t know exactly why Jesus was pleaded with the Father and why He made three appearance to do this pleading but it can be logically inferred. First of all. I have the foundational exegetical approach that God does not “play act”. So I believe that all that was being done here was candid and genuine.

K: Exactly. If God and/or Jesus knew the future as "already played out", then it can only be concluded these three times was an act, a pretending, a farce. However, I don't agree completely with your pleading part. Joh 16:26 "In that day you will ask in My name, and I do not say to you that I shall pray the Father for you; 27 "for the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me, and have believed that I came forth from God." Pleading could mean something more than God is wanting to kill us, but Jesus steps in and convinces Him of something different. Pleading could mean pleading together as a cohesive unit for a solution to pardon man.

M: I also agree the Godhead does not play act for the benefit of uninformed FMAs. However, they do sometimes role play. For example, Jesus isn't literally the Son of the Father. But they use such terms for our benefit. I also agree the Son didn't plead 3 times with the Father to persuade Him not to "let guilty man perish" as if the Father was less inclined, determined to save and redeem mankind. I believe the Father was torn between His love for Jesus and His love for mankind. He loved them equally and could not bear the thought of losing either one. This does not, however, imply neither the Father nor the Son knew with certainty the outcome. That is, they both knew with absolute certainty Jesus would most surely succeed on the cross.

K: Is that to "role play" so that we can feel he made an effort or hard decision? Because, if they both knew with absolute certainty, then neither could be torn nor at risk for failure. But you did say "most surely" as if there were some doubt.?

I do not believe the Father and Son were role playing when they met three times to discuss implementing the plan of salvation, the redemption of mankind. Knowing the outcome does not in the least lessen or eliminate the emotional and physical stress. As I assisted my wife with the birth of our 3 children, knowing the pain they were experiencing would eventually end did not in the least lessen their pain or my emotional stress.

Pleading 'three' times cannot be compared to birthing 'three' children, which I hope you weren't trying to say. Experiencing emotional stress knowing the full outcome would not require pleading three times. How could pleading three times not be considered role playing if they knew full well how it would turn out. And why would it be a 'struggle'? While there might be stress, if knowing how it would turn out, it wouldn't be a struggle.

Interesting thought: If God did know the future as already played out, then wouldn't He also know that He would agree, then therefore would not need three times and surely it not be a 'struggle'? Or was He unable to change the three times of pleading since it had, already played out?
Top
#132594 - 04/11/11 02:35 PM Re: Are there contradictions in the writings of EGW? [Re: NJK Project]
Mountain Man Offline
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2015

20000+ Member
Registered: 10/25/00
Posts: 22078
Loc: Southwest USA
Originally Posted By: NJK Project
M: NJK, we do not see eye to eye as it relates to God's knowledge of the future.

N: This is actually not a matter of seeing ‘eye to eye’. I have yet to see any Scriptural and Direct SOP Revelations support for your view, but indeed simply “maxims and (supposed) truisms”. Your view most logically, outrightly and innately stands against what you are claiming for this SOP Direct Revelation.

M: I've seen what happens when someone tries to discuss opposing views with you. You are convinced beyond doubt you are right. You are also convinced beyond doubt I am wrong. I see no value in continuing this discussion with you.

N: Ohhh... keep the blame yourself Mountain Man. Do you not recall what happen in another discussion when I first believed that the resurrected saints or Christ could not have remained on earth for forty day. I strongly believed I was right until conclusive SOP evidence, harmonizable with the Bible was brought forth. You just need to likewise to the same here. So don’t try to blame me if you can’t/won’t and just prefer to expressed your philosophical opinions. And for ascertaining reasons, and just for the transparent record, what other conversation are your referring to??

Yes, I do recall you changing your mind about the forty days. Thank you for reminding me. I had in mind your discussions with Tom on this thread. I believe the following passages provide inspired support for the view I've been advocating:

Quote:
The plan for our redemption was not an afterthought, a plan formulated after the fall of Adam. It was a revelation of "the mystery which hath been kept in silence through times eternal." Romans 16:25, R. V. It was an unfolding of the principles that from eternal ages have been the foundation of God's throne. From the beginning, God and Christ knew of the apostasy of Satan, and of the fall of man through the deceptive power of the apostate. God did not ordain that sin should exist, but He foresaw its existence, and made provision to meet the terrible emergency. So great was His love for the world, that He covenanted to give His only-begotten Son, "that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16. {DA 22.2}

The purpose and plan of grace existed from all eternity. Before the foundation of the world it was according to the determinate counsel of God that man should be created, endowed with power to do the divine will. But the defection of man, with all its consequences, was not hidden from the Omnipotent, and yet it did not deter him from carrying out his eternal purpose; for the Lord would establish his throne in righteousness. God knows the end from the beginning; "known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world." Therefore redemption was not an afterthought--a plan formulated after the fall of Adam--but an eternal purpose to be wrought out for the blessing not only of this atom of a world but for the good of all the worlds which God has created. {ST, April 25, 1892 par. 1}
Top
#132596 - 04/11/11 03:02 PM Re: Are there contradictions in the writings of EGW? [Re: Mountain Man]
Mountain Man Offline
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2015

20000+ Member
Registered: 10/25/00
Posts: 22078
Loc: Southwest USA
Originally Posted By: NJK
I see that God did love* the world however, He just did not see then that the chances of failure were worth the risk. So in the end, Jesus talked Him into yielding and only by having a love for the world was that even possible to occur. One cannot be convinced without threats to do something which they hate, even if there is much risk involved. Love for Jesus, seeing how this greatly saddened Him probably also served to win Him out.

Of the Godhead, Jesus said, "The Lord our God is one Lord." "They are one in purpose, in mind, in character, but not in person. It is thus that God and Christ are one." {8T 269.4} It is difficult to imagine the Father and Son having opposing views regarding implementing the plan of salvation. It is also difficult to imagine the Son initially having better or more complete ideas and insights about it than the Father.
Top
#132597 - 04/11/11 03:15 PM Re: Are there contradictions in the writings of EGW? [Re: Mountain Man]
Mountain Man Offline
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2015

20000+ Member
Registered: 10/25/00
Posts: 22078
Loc: Southwest USA
Originally Posted By: kland
M: I do not believe the Father and Son were role playing when they met three times to discuss implementing the plan of salvation, the redemption of mankind. Knowing the outcome does not in the least lessen or eliminate the emotional and physical stress. As I assisted my wife with the birth of our 3 children, knowing the pain they were experiencing would eventually end did not in the least lessen their pain or my emotional stress.

K: Pleading 'three' times cannot be compared to birthing 'three' children, which I hope you weren't trying to say. Experiencing emotional stress knowing the full outcome would not require pleading three times. How could pleading three times not be considered role playing if they knew full well how it would turn out. And why would it be a 'struggle'? While there might be stress, if knowing how it would turn out, it wouldn't be a struggle. Interesting thought: If God did know the future as already played out, then wouldn't He also know that He would agree, then therefore would not need three times and surely it not be a 'struggle'? Or was He unable to change the three times of pleading since it had, already played out?

God's knowledge of the future includes the part He played. But such knowledge does not alter what He does as things play out. Knowing the outcome does not lessen the emotional stress.
Top
#132603 - 04/11/11 06:03 PM Re: Are there contradictions in the writings of EGW? [Re: Mountain Man]
NJK Project Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Registered: 08/13/05
Posts: 1098
Loc: Laval, Quebec
Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Yes, I do recall you changing your mind about the forty days. Thank you for reminding me.


Great!! Notwithstanding the extra stress and effort on my part to have to defend myself.

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
I had in mind your discussions with Tom on this thread.


You need to point this out because I do not see that I have had any sharp discussions/disagreements with Tom on “this thread”.

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
I believe the following passages provide inspired support for the view I've been advocating:

Let’s exegetically see!

Originally Posted By: SOP DA 22.2
The plan for our redemption was not an afterthought, a plan formulated after the fall of Adam. It was a revelation of "the mystery which hath been kept in silence through times eternal." Romans 16:25, R. V. It was an unfolding of the principles that from eternal ages have been the foundation of God's throne. From the beginning, God and Christ knew of the apostasy of Satan, and of the fall of man through the deceptive power of the apostate. God did not ordain that sin should exist, but He foresaw its existence, and made provision to meet the terrible emergency. So great was His love for the world, that He covenanted to give His only-begotten Son, "that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16. {DA 22.2}


As I see it EGW bases that entire view and exposition on Rom 16:25, and manifestly not on any direct revelation, I have examined that verse and found that the word “eternal” in the R.V. is a mistranslation. The Greek word is chronos which means: “a period of time.” The word translated “eternal” is the Greek “aionios” and is in the plural form. However, as SDA know, as the same plural form of that word occurs in e.g., Jon 2:6 where Jonah says: “The earth with its bars was around me forever” when it was only 3 days, shows that it does not necessarily have to mean “eternity” or “eternal ages”

So indeed, that “period of time” does not have to be “eternity”, but it can, and indeed is, as I understand it, the different periods of time in the Old Testament when God, through the implementation of the Plan of Salvation with the Sacrifices of Lambs and other Animals, was typify the Gospel. That was all made more concrete during the period of time of the Covenant with Israel.

As also part of typical Gospels of Christ, Paul Gospel included the free admittance of Gentiles into God’s Israel, which Christ had revealed to him (e.g., Acts 9:15), and which Christ had also slightly hinted at during His ministry until the full time for its implementation came (cf. Acts 1:8) and in the OT, though repeatedly also hinted at (e.g., Isa 56:6) and could be done under strict probationary limitations (i.e., the joining of Gentiles to Israel), was for the most part a “hidden/veiled truth” (= “mystery”).

Paul’s Gospel also included the complete non-observance, or in some parts, optional observance of OT ceremonial law and feasts. This was a source of sharp conflict with Him and even Jewish Christians. Indeed I do not see that early Jewish Christians ceased from observing feasts such as Passover.

So it was to all of these Gospel truths that had been veiled/hidden during various times periods in the past, even before the time of the Old Covenant with Israel, that constituted Paul’s ‘(various) ancient time periods’. So it was not the to an ‘eternal past times, and that solely for the establishment of the Plan of Salvation’ as EGW assumed/understood, and went on to make her additional claims.

Also, as it was shown earlier, EGW has the wrong (‘so much”) understanding of the “so in John 3:16 vs. the exgetically actual: ‘in like manner’, i.e., ‘just as a Serpent had been raised in the desert.’ (John 3:14, 15)

Originally Posted By: SOP ST, April 25, 1892 par. 1
The purpose and plan of grace existed from all eternity. Before the foundation of the world it was according to the determinate counsel of God that man should be created, endowed with power to do the divine will. But the defection of man, with all its consequences, was not hidden from the Omnipotent, and yet it did not deter him from carrying out his eternal purpose; for the Lord would establish his throne in righteousness. God knows the end from the beginning; "known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world." Therefore redemption was not an afterthought--a plan formulated after the fall of Adam--but an eternal purpose to be wrought out for the blessing not only of this atom of a world but for the good of all the worlds which God has created. {ST, April 25, 1892 par. 1}


The bold quote above is from Acts 15:18 KJV/NKJV. However only these tow version have that statement. So it may be a manuscript addition. At best it is saying “from long ago” which does not necessarily mean “eternity.” That Acts 15;17 passage is quoting Isa 45:21 which is not saying ‘from eternity’, nor ‘from the beginning’ or ‘before the beginning of the world.’

Also EGW wrongly reads Isa 46:9 as “knows” vs. the actual word “declare”.

As she uses these to make her “therefore” conclusion, it can transparently be seen that her inaccurate exegesis led her to make a wrong conclusion here.

So as none of her Biblical references were based on (unequivocally) accurate Biblical understanding (including PP 63.3 which was similarly based on an inaccurate understanding of Rev 13:8), and were manifestly the basis for her non-direct, but “supposedly” Bible-derived statements, I rather defer to what was directly revealed to her in her vision in this 1SG/EW vision.

In fact I believe that she was making such statement elsewhere seeking to find, though exegetically not successfully, Biblical support in order to dampen the contradicting revelation from that vision.
_________________________
“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Top
Page 3 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >

Moderator:  asygo, Green Cochoa, Rick H 
Sabbath School Lesson Study Material Link
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
Most Recent Posts From Selected Public Forums
(Not Refreshing Immediately)
Is the Investigative Judgement Biblical?
by dedication
Today at 04:44 AM
Protestants renounce Protestantism
by dedication
06/26/17 11:21 PM
Christian school told it must stop using specific scriptures
by Gary K
06/26/17 09:17 PM
A new Global Economic Restructure in 2012
by The Wanderer
06/26/17 05:26 PM
Rejection of the Testimonies Foretold.
by The Wanderer
06/25/17 01:54 AM
Daniel 9 and the 144,000
by kland
06/23/17 02:02 PM
The Euphrates & Kings of the North, South & East
by His child
06/19/17 06:17 AM
Ping kland
by Alchemy
06/17/17 01:17 PM
The Political Pope
by Alchemy
06/17/17 01:05 PM
Left wing financial lunacy
by Alchemy
06/17/17 01:04 PM
Vandals alter road sign
by Gary K
06/16/17 03:39 PM
Seven Trumpets reconsidered
by Karen Y
06/16/17 11:38 AM
There is more than one way to look at the economy!
by Gary K
06/15/17 12:25 AM
Is there a Biblical/Divine calendar?
by dedication
06/11/17 10:44 PM
When The Clouds Go By
by The Wanderer
06/11/17 03:12 PM
Real economic numbers for the US
by Gary K
06/08/17 02:50 PM
Most Recent Posts From Selected Private Forums of MSDAOL
What happens during the seventh seal? Revelation 8:1
by Alchemy
06/11/17 08:16 AM
Will Pope Francis I Apologize to Canadians?
by dedication
06/02/17 07:56 PM
Forum Announcements
Visitors by Country Since February 11, 2013
Flag Counter

Google Maritime SDA OnLine Public Forums Site Search & Google Translation Service
Google
 
Web www.maritime-sda-online.com
WELCOME!
� 2000-Present
Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine (formerly Maritime SDA OnLine).

LEGAL NOTICE:
The views expressed in this forum are those of individuals
and do not necessarily represent those of Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine,
as well as the Seventh-day Adventist Church
from the local church level to the General Conference level.

Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine (formerly Maritime SDA OnLine) is also a self-supporting ministry
and is not part of, or affiliated with, or endorsed by
The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists headquartered in Silver Spring, Maryland
or any of its subsidiaries.


"And He saith unto them, follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men." Matt. 4:19
MARITIME 2ND ADVENT BELIEVERS ONLINE (FORMERLY MARITIME SDA ONLINE) CONSISTING MAINLY OF BOTH MEMBERS & FRIENDS
OF THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH,
INVITES OTHER MEMBERS & FRIENDS OF THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD WHO WISHES TO JOIN US!

Website Ranking