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
(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 a One Time Yearly $20 or Higher Donation Accepted Here to Help Cover the Yearly Expenses of Operating & Upgrading. We need at least $20 X 10 yearly donations.
Donations accepted: Here
ShoutChat Box
Newest Members
ekoorb1030, jibb555, MBloomfield, Dina, Nelson
1323 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums118
Topics9,189
Posts195,525
Members1,323
Most Online5,850
Feb 29th, 2020
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

7 Top Posters(30 Days)
kland 15
Rick H 15
Daryl 4
March
S M T W T F S
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
31
Member Spotlight
ProdigalOne
ProdigalOne
Alberta, Canada
Posts: 1,168
Joined: June 2015
Show All Member Profiles 
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
He hath set an harvest for thee
Rivers Of Living Water
He Leads Us To Green Pastures
Remember What God Has Done
Remember The Sabbath
"...whiter than snow..."
A Beautiful Spring Day
Who's Online
3 registered members (Karen Y, 2 invisible), 2,970 guests, and 5 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 74 of 105 1 2 72 73 74 75 76 104 105
Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: Tom] #132696
04/15/11 02:33 AM
04/15/11 02:33 AM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
Summarily said right at the top, which has been the basis for my approach here, EGW’s counsel is to make the Bible the final arbitrator/authority. That is perfectly in step with Biblical counsel Isa 8:20 & 1 Thess 5:19-21; cf. Acts 17:11.

Quote:
T:NJK, it sounds like you're saying it's OK to disregard Ellen White's statements as long as she doesn't preface it by "I was shown." If she does preface it by "I was shown," then it has greater weight, and should not be disregarded.

NJK:That’s indeed the difference I Theologically understand between the Spirit of Prophecy that God gives to a human vs. that human’s still fully present own thoughts.

Tom: Is this different than Scripture?


Not its not, however, as explained before the Bible writers had many natural advantages that kept them from making exegetical errors with all that is involved here, namely, lexis/vocabulary, syntax, context, culture, custom, history, eye-witness/first hand experiences, etc.


Quote:
Wouldn't the reception of the vision, as well as its presentation, also involve the human element?


I Biblically understand that the human elements kicks in once the vision/revelation is completed. Prior to that God had been directly supernaturally working. It also may take supernatural power to accurately record that revelation in the receivers own words. The prophet Daniel did not understand his own visions and also God chooses to use veiled symbols when relating to a prophet (Num 12:6-8), probably so that it can be related in this veiled from, thus not leaving this work to even a prophet. So it then is not surprising, nor even unbiblical if EGW did not properly understand a vision that she had been given. And as Peter pointed out Paul said some things which are considered as Scripture, that many people could not understand.

Quote:
NJK: It can also be seen, especially by comparative/developmental analysis of repeated passage/statements of EGW if that segment it had been a direct revelation or not. Especially in early works such as e.g, SG, SP she mainly related such direct revelations, with the statement: “I was shown” being copiously stated there, then later she began to insert comments of her Biblical/Theological understandings to pastorally enlarge these works, seeking to have practical applications/understandings to the various circumstances of the readers life.

Tom: She wrote that nothing she wrote were merely hew own ideas.


I would like to see her precise statement, and in context. I would say that she was right in the sense that she was not advancing what she honestly did not think was her own ideas, however just by her simple self corrections it can be seen that this did not mean that everything she said was inerrant or directly inspired.

Case in point: Christ’s response to His Mother at the Cana Feast (Thompson, Inspiration, p. 291), at first in 2SP 101, 102 (1877) she had said that ‘Christ had rebuked His mother as He similar does to present such idolatrous ways’ however by 21 years later for DA 146.1 (1898) she completely flips that statement to imply that it was far from a rebuke but “ in accordance with Oriental custom”. So she may have made that switch upon reading up on this in e.g., the works of others who had written on the life of Christ.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Why do you think there should be a difference of weight placed between statements which say "I was shown" and those that don't? She never made this suggestion. She said none of her writings were merely her own ideas.


See opening summary statement above. Everything must be tested, including what Bible writers have written/said. As far as I see, they have passed the test in terms of Theological soundness. EGW is not above that OT & NT Biblical Testing requirement.

In fact, as it was shown to her in vision, the Apocrypha also must be tested for it contains some truths, even veiled truths key for the last days.

Quote:
NJK: I must all emphasize that I strongly believe that any mistake that are found in EGW’s own comments were all honest mistakes derived mostly from limited scholarly understandings.

Tom: Is this different than Scripture? Most of the Bible writers weren't scholars any more than she was, were they?


I see that Bible writers remained within their capability. E.g., Luke did not presume to try to make Theological statements. He just remained within his capability of being a precise historian. Also he faithfully recorded the theological teachings experiences of the early Church pioneers.

The fact that EGW complained/“lamented”/wished that she was more of a scholar loudly speaks to her realized crucial deficiency in this exegetical regard.

So since I see that what she claims of the plagues contradicts the exegetical testimony, both linguistically and textually, I see that the Biblical view is not affected by her view.


“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
Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: NJK Project] #132698
04/15/11 03:30 AM
04/15/11 03:30 AM
Tom  Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
Originally Posted By: NJK
Summarily said right at the top, which has been the basis for my approach here, EGW’s counsel is to make the Bible the final arbitrator/authority. That is perfectly in step with Biblical counsel Isa 8:20 & 1 Thess 5:19-21; cf. Acts 17:11.


Not in the sense you are saying. She said that the Bible should be used as a means to settle issues such as the law in Galatians, for example, as opposed to relying upon her to make pronouncements. But she never said when there were disagreements between her and Scripture that what Scripture says should be chosen instead of what she said. Rather, she asserted that what she said agreed with Scripture.

Quote:

T:NJK, it sounds like you're saying it's OK to disregard Ellen White's statements as long as she doesn't preface it by "I was shown." If she does preface it by "I was shown," then it has greater weight, and should not be disregarded.

NJK:That’s indeed the difference I Theologically understand between the Spirit of Prophecy that God gives to a human vs. that human’s still fully present own thoughts.

Tom: Is this different than Scripture?

NJK:Not its not, however, as explained before the Bible writers had many natural advantages that kept them from making exegetical errors with all that is involved here, namely, lexis/vocabulary, syntax, context, culture, custom, history, eye-witness/first hand experiences, etc.


What about those who relied upon the Septuagint?


Quote:
T:
Wouldn't the reception of the vision, as well as its presentation, also involve the human element?

NJK:I Biblically understand that the human elements kicks in once the vision/revelation is completed.


What about during the vision itself? Doesn't that depend upon the human element? After all, it's a human being who is perceiving what God is communicating. Wouldn't that have to involve the human brain?

Quote:
Prior to that God had been directly supernaturally working.


And the human being was also working, not supernaturally, but humanly.

Quote:
It also may take supernatural power to accurately record that revelation in the receivers own words.


Accuracy isn't the issue I'm getting at. Perception is. A human being perceives things as a human being, not as God. No matter how accurately a revelation is recorded, it's still going to be the record of the perception of a human being.

Quote:
The prophet Daniel did not understand his own visions and also God chooses to use veiled symbols when relating to a prophet (Num 12:6-8), probably so that it can be related in this veiled from, thus not leaving this work to even a prophet.


Leaving what work? The prophet would be doing the same thing regardless of whether "veiled symbols" are used or not in regards to relating the vision. So "this work" is left to the prophet in either case (whether a "veiled symbol" is used or not).

Quote:
So it then is not surprising, nor even unbiblical if EGW did not properly understand a vision that she had been given.


But it would be surprising of Ellen White said what the vision meant, claiming that she did so under direct guidance from God, and was not presenting merely her own ideas, if this was not the case.

Quote:
And as Peter pointed out Paul said some things which are considered as Scripture, that many people could not understand.


Peter said some of the things Paul said were difficult to understand.

Quote:
NJK: It can also be seen, especially by comparative/developmental analysis of repeated passage/statements of EGW if that segment it had been a direct revelation or not. Especially in early works such as e.g, SG, SP she mainly related such direct revelations, with the statement: “I was shown” being copiously stated there, then later she began to insert comments of her Biblical/Theological understandings to pastorally enlarge these works, seeking to have practical applications/understandings to the various circumstances of the readers life.

Tom: She wrote that nothing she wrote were merely hew own ideas.

NJK:I would like to see her precise statement, and in context.


Try 3SM around page 50. There's a whole section around there which speaks to her understanding of her own writings.

Quote:
I would say that she was right in the sense that she was not advancing what she honestly did not think was her own ideas, however just by her simple self corrections it can be seen that this did not mean that everything she said was inerrant or directly inspired.


What you're saying in regards to "inerrant" agrees with her thought, but regarding "divinely inspired," it disagrees with her thought.

Quote:
Case in point: Christ’s response to His Mother at the Cana Feast (Thompson, Inspiration, p. 291), at first in 2SP 101, 102 (1877) she had said that ‘Christ had rebuked His mother as He similar does to present such idolatrous ways’


What does the phrase inside single quotes mean? Especially "as He similar does to present such idolatrous ways." I have no idea what this means.

Quote:
however by 21 years later for DA 146.1 (1898) she completely flips that statement to imply that it was far from a rebuke but “ in accordance with Oriental custom”.


I don't see what was flipped.

Quote:
So she may have made that switch upon reading up on this in e.g., the works of others who had written on the life of Christ.


I'm not seeing from what you wrote what was switched. If you could present what Thompson wrote, that would be great. I should get his book.

Quote:
T:Why do you think there should be a difference of weight placed between statements which say "I was shown" and those that don't? She never made this suggestion. She said none of her writings were merely her own ideas.

NJK:See opening summary statement above. Everything must be tested, including what Bible writers have written/said. As far as I see, they have passed the test in terms of Theological soundness. EGW is not above that OT & NT Biblical Testing requirement.


This has nothing to do with why "I was shown" statements should have more weight than other inspired statements she wrote.

Quote:
In fact, as it was shown to her in vision, the Apocrypha also must be tested for it contains some truths, even veiled truths key for the last days.


Same comment.

Quote:

NJK: I must all emphasize that I strongly believe that any mistake that are found in EGW’s own comments were all honest mistakes derived mostly from limited scholarly understandings.

Tom: Is this different than Scripture? Most of the Bible writers weren't scholars any more than she was, were they?

NJK:I see that Bible writers remained within their capability. E.g., Luke did not presume to try to make Theological statements. He just remained within his capability of being a precise historian. Also he faithfully recorded the theological teachings experiences of the early Church pioneers.


Ellen White wrote over 100,000 pages, so it's to be expected that she would write about many subjects which wasn't within her category, which would be what anyway? Housewife?

Let's consider the health message. She wasn't a physician. Is it your belief that her counsels regarding health were mistaken?

Quote:
The fact that EGW complained/“lamented”/wished that she was more of a scholar loudly speaks to her realized crucial deficiency in this exegetical regard.


Please quote what she said. I'm not aware of her complaining, or lamenting, not being more of a scholar. That doesn't sound like her to me. Feel free to prove me wrong here please.

Quote:
So since I see that what she claims of the plagues contradicts the exegetical testimony, both linguistically and textually, I see that the Biblical view is not affected by her view.


I see that what you believe in regards to the plagues contradicts both Scripture and her writings, and that you perceive the contradiction between your views and hers, but not between your views and Scripture. I believe she and Scripture are correct.



Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: Tom] #132699
04/15/11 04:48 AM
04/15/11 04:48 AM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
Originally Posted By: Tom
I see that what you believe in regards to the plagues contradicts both Scripture and her writings, and that you perceive the contradiction between your views and hers, but not between your views and Scripture. I believe she and Scripture are correct.


I don’t see that a discussion on Inspiration is pertinent or crucial to this issue here. The substance is in the exegetical analysis itself. The facts are clear that EGW made mistakes and even corrected herself. And the Bible is provedly the Final authority over EGW’s writings, even when she had stated something on a Biblical passage in question. I have seen way too much evidence of this to not objectively understand this, nor see this as not possible/applicable in the Plagues.

So contrary to your view stated above, I see that her views does not agree with the Testimony of Scripture. Therefore, I choose the Bible.

By the way, how exactly do you hold your view on ‘God and the Future’ in the light of what you claim here to believe about EGW writings?? EGW clearly believed that God knew the future.

Also, as seen in this thread, you don’t even follow what EGW says about e.g., the death of Nadab and Abijuh, the War in Heaven and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (seeing here a validity in a volcano view from a non-inspired writer, as if EGW couldn’t see that if that was the case, as she patently does when such “third parties” are involved), etc, then I concretely see that it is the view of God that you privately have and want to have that is the final arbitrator for you and not Scripture or the EGW/SOP. There therefore is no need to continue a discussion on this topic with this unbiblical basis.


“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
Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: NJK Project] #132700
04/15/11 01:20 PM
04/15/11 01:20 PM
K
kland  Offline
SDA
Active Member 2024

5500+ Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,416
Midland
Originally Posted By: NJK
kland: OK, I'll listen. Could you explain why you think the Inquisition came about with God fearing people approving of it? While a few may have participated knowing it was not "just" or correct or right, the way something so large, so encompassing could come about is if the majority of the people believed in it. And they didn't believe they were going against God, but believed they were following God. What or how was it they viewed God as? Did their view of God, their view of His character color their acceptance of such acts?

NJK: The Papacy was not anything close to being compose of ‘God-fearing men’......
As you'll notice from my question, I wasn't talking about the Papacy, but the people or members. True, once it's in place, whether the Papacy or Hitler, it's hard to go against it. But I was asking, how did it come about? Are you able to explain how the people, how the members, allowed such a thing? What, or how, was it they viewed God as? Did their view of God, their view of His character color their acceptance of such acts?

Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: kland] #132704
04/15/11 07:02 PM
04/15/11 07:02 PM
Tom  Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
Originally Posted By: NJK
I don’t see that a discussion on Inspiration is pertinent or crucial to this issue here.


Why not?

Quote:
The substance is in the exegetical analysis itself. The facts are clear that EGW made mistakes and even corrected herself. And the Bible is provedly the Final authority over EGW’s writings, even when she had stated something on a Biblical passage in question.


What's your last sentence mean? She writes something under divine inspiration in regards to a passage of Scripture, but that has no authority if you disagree with what she says? For example, she writes point blank, 'The apostle Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is referring to the moral law' in regards to a dispute in Galatians which was going on in the 1890's (I'm using your convention of single quotes indicating a paraphrase). Are we to understand she might be wrong here, and Paul didn't really have the moral law in mind?

Quote:
I have seen way too much evidence of this to not objectively understand this, nor see this as not possible/applicable in the Plagues.


Or anything else, I suppose.

Quote:
So contrary to your view stated above, I see that her views does not agree with the Testimony of Scripture. Therefore, I choose the Bible.


That's what I said.

1.(You believe) you agree with the Bible, and disagree with Ellen White, and that I disagree with the Bible, but agree with Ellen White.
2.(I believe) I agree with the Bible and Ellen White.

Quote:
By the way, how exactly do you hold your view on ‘God and the Future’ in the light of what you claim here to believe about EGW writings?? EGW clearly believed that God knew the future.


God does know the future. He knows it as it is, which is Open. She has a number of statements which make this evident, including the one you cited in Early Writings.

In DA 49, she says that God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss. If God saw the future as is traditionally understood, she couldn't have said that. In DA 131 she says something similar, that Christ "He not only became an exile from the heavenly courts, but for us took the risk of failure and eternal loss." In COL somewhere she writes that Christ risked all, and that heaven itself was imperiled for our redemption. So this is a number of statements which disagree with the traditional view.

Quote:
Also, as seen in this thread, you don’t even follow what EGW says about e.g., the death of Nadab and Abijuh, the War in Heaven and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (seeing here a validity in a volcano view from a non-inspired writer,


What I quoted didn't have to do with a volcano view. I just said there were people who saw that as a possibility. Many see that Sodom and Gomorrah could have been a natural disaster.

Quote:
as if EGW couldn’t see that if that was the case, as she patently does when such “third parties” are involved), etc, then I concretely see that it is the view of God that you privately have and want to have that is the final arbitrator for you and not Scripture or the EGW/SOP.


Anybody's view of God is a final arbiter in how thy interpret inspired writings. I've been saying this all along. Our view of God influences how we perceive things.

The question is, how should our view of God be obtained? I've been saying that Jesus Christ is the revelation of God, and what He revealed should be the foundation of our view of God's character.

Quote:
There therefore is no need to continue a discussion on this topic with this unbiblical basis.


It's completely Biblical. I realize the following is from the SOP, but it's based on John 17, and explains the Biblical basis eloquently, so I'll quote it here:

Quote:
Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,—to set men right through the revelation of God. In Christ was arrayed before men the paternal grace and the matchless perfections of the Father. In his prayer just before his crucifixion, he declared, “I have manifested thy name.” “I have glorified thee on the earth; I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.” When the object of his mission was attained,—the revelation of God to the world,—the Son of God announced that his work was accomplished, and that the character of the Father was made manifest to men. {ST January 20, 1890, par. 9}


Also, from the same article:

Quote:
The very attributes that belonged to the character of Satan, the evil one represented as belonging to the character of God. Jesus came to teach men of the Father, to correctly represent him before the fallen children of earth. Angels could not fully portray the character of God, but Christ, who was a living impersonation of God, could not fail to accomplish the work. The only way in which he could set and keep men right was to make himself visible and familiar to their eyes. That men might have salvation he came directly to man, and became a partaker of his nature. {ST January 20, 1890, par. 6}


John, in particular, has the theme throughout his Gospel of Jesus Christ as the revelation of God, even referring to Him as "the Word of God," God's thought made audible.


Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: Tom] #132708
04/16/11 12:11 AM
04/16/11 12:11 AM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
I could easily refute all of the points you have raised up Tom however you just continue on the same frustrating method of obfuscating whatever you have no answer to or entirely ignoring them, including exegesis, which as a (purported) seminarian you have no valid excuse to do so, yet still claiming to see a ‘dense forest.’ Perhaps if you address the key points that I mentioned in that post, I consider that you are being sincere in this discussion. And EGW makes other definite statements on the future and citing the ‘possible view’ of someone does not actually address the issue or answer the question at hand.


“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
Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: kland] #132709
04/16/11 12:17 AM
04/16/11 12:17 AM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
Originally Posted By: kland
As you'll notice from my question, I wasn't talking about the Papacy, but the people or members. True, once it's in place, whether the Papacy or Hitler, it's hard to go against it. But I was asking, how did it come about? Are you able to explain how the people, how the members, allowed such a thing? What, or how, was it they viewed God as? Did their view of God, their view of His character color their acceptance of such acts?


As usual kland you need to think things thoroughly through and go to the realistic truth and source. It was all about the Papacy then, and in these Dark Ages, the generally uneduacated/unlearned laity had no choice but to believe as the absolute truth whatever the clergy taught and told them was true. That ascertainable, underlying incontrovertible, commonly known social/religious/historical fact should have answered your questions here.


“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
Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: NJK Project] #132713
04/16/11 05:20 AM
04/16/11 05:20 AM
Tom  Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
Originally Posted By: NJK
NJK:I could easily refute all of the points you have raised up Tom however you just continue on the same frustrating method of obfuscating whatever you have no answer to or entirely ignoring them, including exegesis, which as a (purported) seminarian you have no valid excuse to do so, yet still claiming to see a ‘dense forest.’


"Purported"? I went to Andrews in 1990-1992. Why would you write such a thing? You write many mean-spirited things. I don't know if you do this on purpose, or you don't realize how the things you write will be taken, or what, but this is a forum where Christians from the same church meet together to discuss spiritual things. Please bear in mind that the people you are addressing have feelings, and that, as Christians, we bear the name of Christ.

Quote:
Perhaps if you address the key points that I mentioned in that post, I consider that you are being sincere in this discussion.


What key points?

Quote:
And EGW makes other definite statements on the future and citing the ‘possible view’ of someone does not actually address the issue or answer the question at hand.


Possible view? I cited the actual quotes. That's not a "possible view," but an actual view.

"All heaven was imperiled for our redemption." How could this possibly be true under the traditional view?


Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: Tom] #132719
04/16/11 02:33 PM
04/16/11 02:33 PM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
Succinctly said:

-“Purported” - I have not seen evidence in your responses that you are exegetically cognisant, functional or knowledgeable/competent, for lack of more descriptive term.

-Key points - try the pertinently related ‘War in Heaven’, which you always ignore, as well virtually all exegetical points, as if you cannot understand/deal with them. Quoting the Amplified Bible is not tantamount to exegesis. (I’ll pass on Nadad & Abihu given your discussion with MM). Re-read that post for more. The same thing has been patently occurring in literally every other posts you’ve made in response to mine in this thread!!

By the way did you even read the SOP references for the Cana Feast statements before answering?? By your replies, it does not seem so

-EGW and Future - look up EGW’s: ‘opened the future’ type of statements

-‘possible view’ - Your reply to why you did not go by EGW’s account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by fire being sent by God was the ‘possible volcano view’ of a non-inspired source (i.e., vs. the Bible and SOP). How does become the authoritative source. As I said, I go by the Bible (exegetically), and EGW if/when she agrees/harmonizes with the Bible; and not, as you resort to do, against and/or oblivious to, both of them, even for the suppositions of Man. It is most clear to me that it is the view you want to have of God that leads to this haphazard and subjective selectiveness. How can a Bible-based, SDA Theology, discussion be conducted with that basis??


“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
Re: Why did God command people to stone, scorch, and smite sinners to death? [Re: NJK Project] #132728
04/16/11 07:38 PM
04/16/11 07:38 PM
Tom  Offline
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
Originally Posted By: NJK
NJK:Succinctly said:

-“Purported” - I have not seen evidence in your responses that you are exegetically cognisant, functional or knowledgeable/competent, for lack of more descriptive term.


One would think someone as critical as you are could write sentences that have at least reasonably proper grammar and correct spelling. It's really amazing that someone who writes as poorly as you do is as critical as you are.

I love discussing the issues being discussed on the threads I'm participating in. Sure, I would like it if everybody agreed with me, but that's not reality. My hope in these discussions isn't to try to convince others to agree with me (although when that happens, rare that it may be, that's nice), but to try to understand the point of view of others better, and to sharpen my own understanding of issues.

Quote:
-Key points - try the pertinently related ‘War in Heaven’, which you always ignore,


I don't "always ignore" anything. Whatever points one makes, I'll address. There's no call for you to make an accusation like this.

Your writing is both voluminous and difficult to parse. I've tried to address key points you make, and keep up with what you've written, and have repeatedly said that if I miss something, to please just repeat it. Anything I'm not addressing is not by design, but due to just missing it through the sheer volume, or not understanding what you're trying to say, due to poor writing.

Quote:
as well virtually all exegetical points, as if you cannot understand/deal with them. Quoting the Amplified Bible is not tantamount to exegesis.


Of course I made no such claim.

Quote:
(I’ll pass on Nadad & Abihu given your discussion with MM). Re-read that post for more.


For more what?

Quote:
The same thing has been patently occurring in literally every other posts you’ve made in response to mine in this thread!!


The same what thing? Your just rambling all over the place. Place be clear in what you're talking about, or what it is that you want. You're not making any points that have to do with our discussion.

Quote:
By the way did you even read the SOP references for the Cana Feast statements before answering??


Before answering what?

Quote:
By your replies, it does not seem so


Replies to what?

Quote:
-EGW and Future - look up EGW’s: ‘opened the future’ type of statements


This is extremely vague, but I'll take a shot here. My understanding of the future is that it is comprised of possibilities, all of which God foresees. The future doesn't become a reality until it occurs. Agents with free will have the ability to choose to act how they wish, so that what specifically will happen cannot be known as fact, given there is an actual possibility that the given agent will make either this choice, or that one.

Also, in reference to future events that God is Himself to actively take place in, it's trivial for Him to foresee His own actions.

Even we humans, with our puny intelligence compared to God, can foresee the future in certain contexts. That the future is open to God is to be expected. The problem with the traditional view is that asserts that there is one specific future which God sees, which causes logical problems.

Quote:
-‘possible view’ - Your reply to why you did not go by EGW’s account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by fire being sent by God was the ‘possible volcano view’ of a non-inspired source (i.e., vs. the Bible and SOP).


I never said anything like this! I never said, "The reason I do not go by EGW's account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by fire being sent by God was (anything)."

I made no comment whatsoever about Ellen White's account.

You are continually inaccurate in what your claiming I'm saying. I've asked you to quote things I've said. Please do so, or be less dogmatic about your statements as to what I'm saying. If you're going to be dogmatic, please support your assertions with evidence.

Quote:
How does become the authoritative source.


This is missing a noun. How does what become the authoritative source?

Quote:
As I said, I go by the Bible (exegetically), and EGW if/when she agrees/harmonizes with the Bible; and not, as you resort to do, against and/or oblivious to, both of them, even for the suppositions of Man.


This is incoherent.

Quote:
It is most clear to me that it is the view you want to have of God that leads to this haphazard and subjective selectiveness. How can a Bible-based, SDA Theology, discussion be conducted with that basis??


I didn't start with a view of God that I wanted to have. I evolved into the view of God that I have over many years by reading things and meditating upon themes.

The Great Controversy theme made a huge impact upon me as a young man. It led, to a great degree, to my becoming a Seventh-day Adventist.

The 1888 message had a tremendous impact on my thinking.

The Desire of Ages had a tremendous impact, as well as the Great Controversy.

George Fifield had a tremendous impact.

Jesus Christ's words, "When you've seen me, you've seen the Father" had a tremendous impact.

Ty Gibson as well.

I read different things, and sometimes they impress me, especially things which cause me to consider God in a more positive light. I believe the truth about God is better than we can imagine, that we are always on the side of thinking of Him as less gracious, humble, kind, wonderful, loving than He really is, and that Christ has given us but the briefest glimpse, not because of any lack on Christ's part, but because our senses are so dim.

Here's something from Ty:

Quote:
Who we are in character acts as in internal lens that colors our discernment of God's character...

When, with sincere desire to know God, we allow our characters to be shaped by the light He gives, we place ourselves i a spiritual condition that makes further discernment of God's character possible....Our perception of Him and our growing likeness to Him dovetail as one process.

In His wise providence, God has allowed the Scriptures to be composed in such a way that those who search its pages with an honest desire to know Him will see His true character shining through. Conversely, the same source of light is a snare of delusion to those who would rather fashion God in their own image in order to evade their personal need to be fashioned into His. (See With New Eyes; p. 46, 47)


Those who wait for the Bridegroom's coming are to say to the people, "Behold your God." The last rays of merciful light, the last message of mercy to be given to the world, is a revelation of His character of love.
Page 74 of 105 1 2 72 73 74 75 76 104 105

Moderator  dedication, 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
Seven Trumpets reconsidered
by Karen Y. 03/27/24 09:35 AM
Are the words in the Bible "imperfect"?
by Kevin H. 03/24/24 09:02 PM
The Story of David and Goliath
by ProdigalOne. 03/23/24 08:06 PM
Global Warming Farce
by kland. 03/22/24 10:17 AM
Carbon Dioxide What's so Bad about It?
by kland. 03/21/24 12:34 PM
The Value of Bible Types
by TruthinTypes. 03/17/24 06:22 PM
Orion Which Every One on the Globe Can See
by Rick H. 03/16/24 06:26 PM
'Prophet' Summons UFOs
by ProdigalOne. 03/16/24 02:19 AM
Will You Take The Wuhan Virus Vaccine?
by dedication. 03/11/24 06:31 PM
Get That Razor Wire Up!
by kland. 03/05/24 12:49 PM
Messages for This Time
by ProdigalOne. 03/04/24 05:54 AM
The Lake of Fire is Hell
by Rick H. 03/02/24 05:01 PM
Adventist Agriculture
by kland. 02/29/24 12:33 PM
Most Recent Posts From Selected Private Forums of MSDAOL
The Wound Is Healed! The Mark Is Forming!
by Rick H. 03/27/24 10:36 PM
Are we seeing a outpouring of the Holy Spirit?
by Rick H. 03/24/24 06:50 PM
Time Is Short!
by Rick H. 03/24/24 06:45 PM
Climate Change and the Sunday Law
by Rick H. 03/24/24 06:42 PM
WHAT IS THE VERY END-TIME PROPHECY?
by Rick H. 03/23/24 06:03 PM
Digital Identity Control
by Rick H. 03/23/24 02:08 PM
A.I. - The New God?
by Rick H. 03/23/24 01:59 PM
Christian Nationalism/Sunday/C
limate Change

by ProdigalOne. 03/16/24 08:38 PM
Perils of the Emerging Church Movement
by Rick H. 03/16/24 06:30 PM
Is There A Connection Between WO & LGBTQ?
by Kevin H. 03/12/24 09:20 PM
A Second American Civil War?
by Daryl. 03/04/24 06:14 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

Copyright 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!
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1