"Houteff, you, the Shepard's Rod and I were all wrong."

Do not think so MS.The whole purpose of these words--'Behold I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and dreadful day of the Lord" --can not return void.

When we read (Test. to Min. p.475) we notice that EGW says this "Elijah" will be known for his interpretations (yet the people will claim they are not correct). And what interpretations would that be? Obviously on Scripture pertaining to the "great and dreadful day of the Lord". In other words-- Revelation among other Scripture.

So for one to say that EGW was to be the final say on prophecy is to deny that any "Elijah" was to "restore" anything. That is one of the reasons we showed the Zech. 4 prophecy. There are only two pipes (messengers-interpreters) authorized by God to take the "oil"
from the "trees" the NT and OT. As this prophecy was not completely interpreted until 1939 (She did touch on it in PK, p.593-594), it shows that God intended one more messenger along with EGW to do the interpretive work on Scripture.

That's why we as SDA need to ask, who in our history (after EGW) has had such voluminous interpretations, and at the same time been denounced as a false interpreter?

"No prophet of God has ever forged a complete prophetic chain of events, with no links missing. It has taken many inspired writers to complete the long chain of prophecy. The mind, therefore which takes the position that Sister White has done what no prophet in or out of the Bible has ever done, does so at the utter disregard of actual Biblical procedure and also of revealed Truth.

She herself says that "no man, however honored of Heaven, has ever attained to a full understanding of the great plan of redemption, or even to a perfect appreciation of the Divine purpose in the work for his own time. Men do not fully understand what God would accomplish by the work which He gives them to do; they do not comprehend, in all its bearings, the message which they utter in His name."--The Great Controversy, p. 343." (Answerer, vol. 2, Q-42)

Let us not forget also that the last message from the True witness will be "lightly esteemed if not entirely dis regarded."

Instead of picking that one aspect out as your perceived error, what do you think about the other 95%? For instance, the explanation of:

10.Revelation 17:11
Was ----Before the millennium.

Is Not ----During the millennium

He Is The Eighth ----He is the eighth beast—all the beast from Daniel 7 and Revelation:

VTH illuminated subjects that EGW touched lightly or not at all, like the pre-millennial kingdom, we hope to post a couple reports on that soon.

As far as the 1888 message,I would rather you ask any specific question.Thanks GLL

This excerpt is from a larger talk, found in 1SM400-416. Who is it that EGW is referring to as "Elijah"? See 1SM412. HINT: It was not Houteff.

The two olive trees in Zech 4 are the same two anointed ones described in Revelation 11, the two anointed witnesses and these two are a figure of the church under the power of the latter rain. These measure the entire church with the Elijah message. They are commissioned to measure the temple and worshipers but to leave out the outer court, the court of the gentiles, a symbol of Babylon. This fulfills Malachi's prophecy that the Lord will suddenly come to His temple and purify the sons of Levi. The call is made to all but only those in Babylon who respond and leave all human wisdom and worship behind will be purified and stand with the remnant as priests and kings.

Ellen White never presumed to assert a claim to be one of the two anointed. Why? One reason is that in her commentary on Revelation 10 and 11 (the two should be read together) she places these scenes in the future. Since she believed they applied to the future they couldn't apply to her. She knew and taught that parts of the prophecies were still sealed and so she pointed us to them and urged their study so that we would recognize their fulfillment when the time comes. When you're able consider doing a study of her position on the seven sealed book and the sealed thunders. All of us have more to learn.

Concerning the two witnesses the prophet declares further: "These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth." "Thy word," said the psalmist, "is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path." Revelation 11:4; Psalm 119:105. The two witnesses represent the Scriptures of the Old and the New Testament. Both are important testimonies to the origin and perpetuity of the law of God. Both are witnesses also to the plan of salvation. The types, sacrifices, and prophecies of the Old Testament point forward to a Saviour to come. The Gospels and Epistles of the New Testament tell of a Saviour who has come in the exact manner foretold by type and prophecy. {GC 267.1}

APL --"This excerpt is from a larger talk, found in 1SM400-416. Who is it that EGW is referring to as "Elijah"? See 1SM412. HINT: It was not Houteff."

There is history behind this trick. For instance the quote (p.475, which is a compilation of the different references) was left alone with no asterisk put by it from 1890 to 1961. Even during Houteff's day the GC didn't dare mess with it as they ALL knew well that EGW was not talking of herself.

Further to believe EGW was saying "she" was the Elijah to come makes us call both her and God a liar. The Mal. 4:5 Scripture specifically says He will send "Elijah" not "Deborah" or any other woman for that matter.

Again, we must follow counsel -- "The language of the Bible should be explained according to it's obvious meaning, unless a symbol or figure is employed." (GC, p.598-599)

Do you see any symbol or figure used in that promise? I see a "Elijah"--a man to come. Not once in all of Scripture did God refer to a woman as a male name--search and see.

Further, EGW said "when HE appears" are you saying she meant to say "she" and that this is not referring to a future time ? Again, as one who wrote that we are to take the Bible as it reads, she certainly, as a prophetess knew well that it applied to her as well. No where in SDA history do we find any SDA teaching that she was talking of herself until 1961. 71 years without adding to her unmistakable meaning. 1961 was significant because the GC leaders were very much aware of their opportunity due to the fact that Florence Houteff had recently made the false perdiction of Ezek. 9 occurring in 1959.

Again, they did not dare change her writing on this subject (p.475) while brother Houteff was alive (up to 1955), and even though they well knew the VTH used that many times in his writings. You'd think if they knew he was using that reference and they thought it was false intepretation they would have spoken up and even added their asterisk at that time (1930-1955)

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." (Matt. 11:15)

My greater point was not addressed--what do you do with the "Elijah" to come (Mal. 4:5)?

Are you denying it has a literal latter day application (before the great and dreadful day of the Lord)? Are you saying Ellen White was the last prophet to come?

"The prophet Malachi declares, "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord; and he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers." Here the prophet describes the character of the work. Those who are to prepare the way for the second coming of Christ, are represented by faithful Elijah, as John came in the spirit of Elijah to prepare the way for Christ's first advent. {CD 71.1}

EGW does not say the "coming of Elijah" is the coming of a man. She points to "those who are preparing the way" as representing this last day coming.

Let me give you, brother Mark, an example of the Rod "restoring" truth, of which EGW saw but dimly.

In speaking about the final countdown events leading up to Christ's death and resurrection, we read--

"...the only disagreement between "The Shepherd's Rod" and "The Desire of Ages" on this subject, is that "The Desire of Ages" says that "On the second day of the feast, the first fruits of the year's harvest, a sheaf of barley, was presented before the Lord" ("The Desire of Ages," p. 77), which places the first feast of the Passover on the Sabbath (Num. 28:17), thus making the slaying of the Lamb and the fourteenth day (Ex. 12:6) fall on Friday; whereas, "The Shepherd's Rod" places the slaying of the lamb and the fourteenth day on Wednesday, the first feast on Thursday, the second feast on Friday, and so on.

Therefore, in view of the fact that "The Shepherd's Rod" and "The Desire of Ages" are here at variance, and that we believe both to be inspired, we must necessarily go to the Bible to prove which is the correct day, and how to harmonize the two volumes. Thus, laying aside both "The Shepherd's Rod" and "The Desire of Ages," we go for witnesses to Mark and John:

We quote John 19:14, "And it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour: and he [Pilate] saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!" Mark 15:33 witnesses thus: "And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour."

In the above scriptures, two "sixth" hours are presented. In the first instance, Jesus was in Pilate's judgment hall, but in the second, He was hanging on the cross at which time the sun's face was veiled and the whole earth was covered with darkness. Inasmuch as circumstances clearly show that, these two "sixth" hours were twelve hours apart, and inasmuch as the sun darkened while Jesus was hanging on the cross, the latter sixth hour must have been in the day time, whereas, the former sixth hour must have been in the night time.

Furthermore, the ancient time piece was regulated by sunset at twelve o'clock, which brought midnight at the sixth hour, thus proving, in the light of preceding facts, that the "sixth hour," while Jesus was in Pilate's judgment hall was "about" midnight, and that the sixth hour while He was hanging on the cross, and when the sun was darkened, was about noon.

Now, if the midnight seizure, the trial before Pilate, the crucifixion, and the burial of Jesus, all took place in one day--Friday, then how could He have been seized in the garden shortly after midnight, led from there successively to Annas, to Caiaphas, to the Sanhedrim, and to Pilate, and yet be in Pilate's judgment hall about midnight?

This utter impossibility alone should convince any one with an understanding mind that these events must necessarily have consumed two days and that any argument supporting the idea that they consumed but one day, is not against the exposition of "The Shepherd's Rod," but against the testimonies of Mark and John, who were eye witnesses to these events.

Hence, let those who, on this account, lay aside "The Shepherd's Rod" realize that they are laying aside the Bible.

Inasmuch as Jesus ate the Passover feast with the disciples before He was seized by the Roman soldiery and the mob (Luke 22:7 through 14), therefore, the fourteenth day of the month, the day on which the Passover lamb was to be slain, fell on Wednesday; the first of the feasts was on Thursday, at which time the midnight seizure took place; and Jesus was tried before Pilate, crucified, and buried on Friday.

Now, owing to the fact that we hold that the writings of Sister White are inspired, we are under obligation to clear the discrepancy between the record of "The Desire of Ages" and that of Mark and John. There can be but one explanation to this, and that is that the word "second" ("The Desire of Ages," p. 77), has in some way gotten used in place of the word "fourth."

Of course, we are forced to the conclusion that this inaccuracy of time occurred as a result either of oversight or of intention, the latter being the more probable, because, of the fact that the denomination has always erroneously believed that the events of the seizure, trials, crucifixion, and burial of Christ all took place in one day.

To confirm the possibility of such an intentional change to agree with existing belief, we call attention to the following vision which was printed in the first edition of "Early Writings," but which was omitted from page 34 of the latest edition,

"I saw all that would not receive the mark of the Beast and of his Image, in their foreheads or in their hands,' could not buy or sell. I saw that the number (666) of the Image Beast was made up; and that it was the Beast that changed the Sabbath, and the Image Beast had followed on after, and kept the Pope's, and not God's Sabbath."

We believe this vision was deleted from "Early Writings" because it was not in harmony with the teachings of the ministry at that time, who then taught, as they still teach, that the numerical name, 666, belongs to the Pope instead of the two-horned beast, and that the Image Beast is the Pope instead of the two-horned beast.

In view of this tampering with the original text of "Early Writings," we are forced to conclude the same to be possible in the case of "The Desire of Ages." However, the change may have come in some other way.(Sym. Code, vol. 3, no.8-10, p.11-12)

Christ says: "You will know them by their fruits". Here we have another contradiction of the SOP and scripture. Victor Houteff alleges that the D of A has been corrupted but his followers ignore the fact that if Ellen White did originally hold to a Wednesday arrest etc she had 17 years between 1898 when it was published and her death in 1915 to correct it. And even more time than this elapsed because the D of A is an expansion of the original Spiritual Gifts series (1858 to 1864) that was expanded into the Spirit of Prophecy series (1870 to 1884) and finally the Conflict of the Ages series (1888 to 1911). When a man with strong opinions and leadership ability usurps the role of the Holy Spirit the result is that he gathers a cult-like following to himself. The more recent manifestation of cult-like behavior is at Waco Texas. The Brand Dividians (their use of the term "Branch" refers to the same "Rod" of the Shepard's Rod) were/are lead by the same man-worship.

The Lord is warning Adventists, Shepard's Rod and Christians in general - beware of making putting man's opinions in the place of scripture. Test everything against the word. The two witnesses are still what they always were - the Old and New Testaments.

This thread is titled "Did EGW Predict Another Prophet Would Arise?" While she didn't predict a single prophet, she did make many sweeping statements about the church in receipt of the latter rain. We know that the NT church received the early rain, that it contained many prophets and that the latter rain will be much greater. It's inconceivable that spiritual gifts of all types will not be manifested on a greater scale than at Pentecost before the return of Christ.

In 1888 we had the rumblings of what will eventually swell into this final manifestation. What are the characteristics of the 1888 message? It would be worth our study to look at that question so that we will recognize and accept the unfolding of the Elijah message and not repeat the same tragic denial that most denominational leaders fell into at that time.