Elle said:
"So please let us know how the Lord can communicate to us what is the Holy Spirit interpretation? My ears are all open."

If your ears are truely open, then hear these words anew!

"Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? [them that are] weaned from the milk, [and] drawn from the breasts.
For precept [must be] upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, [and] there a little:"
Isaiah 28:9-10



Elle, I cannot accept your haphazard method of interpreting God's Word. I have seen it before. I have seen where it leads. Most of all, I have seen its fruit in your life.
You have been led away from your first Love. You have been made to believe a lie.

and
Not sure how that is different than an individual private interpretation?

Not sure how that is different than an individual private interpretation?

Yep.

Yes, my question is how is that different from an individual private interpretation?

I have no idea why kland and APL can be so self-deceived as to think they know better than me what I believe. I also have no idea why Elle would ask them what I believe instead of asking me. I further do not know why anyone here could be so unsure of what I believe on this point, as I have been clear before--but obviously people either do not read or do not remember, and the same old tired horse must be kicked again. Is it worth side-tracking yet another thread on these "questions"?

Please put this down in your memory banks once and for all--PLEASE.

NO! Green does NOT believe that God murders. God will NEVER murder. There is a difference between "kill" and "murder". God kills at times, in mercy and in judgment. God will never murder. More than one thread has now taken this question on, and failed, because some people have no ability to discriminate between the concepts of "kill" and "murder." If you believe that they are equal, do not thereby foist your view upon me to cause me to say the same, and therefore feel I believe God murders! Your view is NOT my view.

A word to the wise should suffice. Are any here truly wise, or just wise in their own eyes?

What kind of wisdom ignorantly speaks for someone else as if the speaker knew better than the other what the other thinks--especially when the two have never been able to see eye-to-eye on the matter? That someone would attempt to do such a thing speaks volumes in and of itself. If you cannot agree with my position, it is certain that you cannot claim to understand it properly. This is for two (2) reasons: First, because disagreements are most frequently caused by misunderstandings; and Secondly, because you have exposed your bias against a view and cannot impartially assess that view.

Nonetheless, self-deceptions are growing stronger in our society.



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I have not participated in this thread, but Green brings me in so I will make one comment and the drop out.

***** STAFF EDIT *****

No, God does not murder. God does not kill. Sin kills. Satan is a murder. God does not kill. You believe you know what the term ratsach means. Yet SCRIPTURE goes against your interpretation that the 10C refers to "murder", and that judicial killing is OK.

The Hebrew ratsach means "kill" in a generic sense and in special contexts denotes intentional murder with nefarious motive. The folks who say that the commandment refers only to illegitimate killing with the implication that there is a legitimate killing, reverse this and say it means murder in a general sense and in special contexts denotes an unintentional killing or a termination of life with just cause. The latter can only be realized if it is God who somehow legitimizes it.

Numbers 35:6 And among the cities which you shall give to the Levites there shall be six cities for refuge, which you shall appoint for the manslayer, that he may flee thither: and to them you shall add forty and two cities.

Numbers 35:11 Then you shall appoint you cities to be cities of refuge for you; that the slayer may flee thither, which kills any person at unawares.

Ratsach - does not refer to murder in these verses. The KJV is not wrong in its interpretation. God is not a murder. God is not a killer of any kind. God is not "A" destroyer. The way God destroys sinners is clearly revealed in the death of Christ. And the Father did not touch His son. Sin killed the Son of God, not the Father. It is a false concept of the character of God in its assumption that God DOES in fact stand toward the sinner as an executioner, which is then read back into the commandment.

God's wrath and man's wrath do not function at all in the same way (James 1:20). When man executes wrath, he moves toward the subject in order to apply forces, whether physical or psychological, but when God executes wrath, He moves away from the subject, leaving them open to outside forces of destruction, which may come in various ways, sometimes even directly at the hands of Satan.

God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown…. The Spirit of God, persistently resisted, is at last withdrawn from the sinner, and then there is left no power to control the evil passions of the soul, and no protection from the malice and enmity of Satan. The destruction of Jerusalem is a fearful and solemn warning to all who are trifling with the offers of divine grace and resisting the pleadings of divine mercy. Never was there given a more decisive testimony to God's hatred of sin and to the certain punishment that will fall upon the guilty {GC 36.1}.

Throughout the Old Testament we have the language of God destroying, which happens in various ways, sometimes apparently by direct means. However, we must always apply the principle of "hiding of face," according to numerous and ample keys given within the pages of Holy writ itself, which define God's wrath, vengeance, judgment, etc., (see Deuteronomy 31:16-18; Isaiah 57:17, Psalms 78:50; Psalms 78:62, etc.)

The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government; He desires only the service of love; and love cannot be commanded; it cannot be won by force or authority. Only by love is love awakened. To know God is to love Him; His character must be manifested in contrast to the character of Satan. This work only one Being in all the universe could do. Only He who knew the height and depth of the love of God could make it known. Upon the world's dark night the Sun of Righteousness must rise, "with healing in His wings." Malachi 4:2. {DA 22.1}

Oh indeed that we could see God as revealed by the Son.

APL,

Your interpretative errors illustrate why we need Ellen White today. If we never needed her writings before, we sure do need them now.


"God must punish murderers. He gives life, and He will take life, if that life becomes a terror and a menace" (MS 126, 1901). -- Ellen White.

"See now that I, [even] I, [am] he, and [there is] no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither [is there any] that can deliver out of my hand." (Deut. 32:39) -- God.

God tells us He kills. That should be definitive enough. But some dare say He doesn't. The important question is "Why?" What sin, error, or sinful desire would cause us to be blind toward this truth? Why does Satan wish for people to be ignorant about this truth? If I accept Satan's lies, how dangerous will it be to my soul? Will it eventually cause me to give up on Ellen White, and then the Bible, because private opinion has displaced the truth?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

On this forum we've seen the logical progression of where this whole thing leads.

First comes removing from God His right and perfect justice to remove life.

God IS LIFE, there is no life outside of God. Your every heartbeat is a gift from God. God can sustain life for as long as He wishes. He can heal, He can raise the dead, He can keep everyone living indefinitely if He so choses. But God has no intentions of giving sin eternal life. He gives life to all so they have an opportunity to chose Him and Life, or rebel against Him and forfeit life -- for there is no life except God gives and sustains it.

But now the door is opened to suggest that once God gives life, He has no right to take the breath of life back, as if people already had innate eternal life within themselves, and only sin was messing it up, and if only sin were gone, the body would heal and eternal life would carry on eternally. No, people do not have innate eternal life. They have life only for as long as God gives them the breath of life. If God sees an extension of life is beneficial He can make life continue even when sinful conditions do their utmost to end it.

So step #1, get people believing God would never end the existence of anyone.

What's the next logical step?

Throw out the visions given Ellen White, and follow the same kind of ideas that Elle is sharing. Ideas like --God will eventually, after patiently showing and teaching people over thousands of years, bring everyone to repentance and give them eternal life. God can't destroy anyone, so He will have to save everyone.


It's NOT the three angel's message -- it's something totally different --

Green, sound bites are insufficient. READ the whole paragraph from which you quote. READ the whole body of work. Take your manuscript quote, what did the first sentence say? Quote: "How carefully God protects the rights of men! He has attached a penalty to wilful murder. “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.”

What does EGW mean to you when she writes, "God destroys no man?" That God really does destroy men? What does EGW mean to you when she writes, "God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression?" That God really IS the executioner? That is what you are saying.
Do you understand the language of the Bible? Did you read these verses? Deuteronomy 31:16-18; Isaiah 57:17, Psalms 78:50; Psalms 78:62? Did you read how God killed Saul?

You have recently demonstrated a glaring lack of understanding of EGW's writings, and weakened any trust in your use of her statements. I have quoted a number of references in EGW which clearly show that God is not the executioner of the sentence against transgression. But you say He is? Should I now trust you? Have I ever said that Siners do not die? No, not once! What I am saying is not delusion of universalism. Have I take that one step? The question if how sinners die. Christ is the answer! Did God the Father execute His Son? Nope. What is at stake in the Great Controversy? God's Justice! Shall we accept that if we do not love God, that He will destroy us? No, God kept Satan alive because if He had died the envitable results of sin, the universe would not have understood the fact that sin really is the cause of death. To quote EGW: Had Satan and his host then been left to reap the full result of their sin, they would have perished; but it would not have been apparent to heavenly beings that this was the inevitable result of sin. A doubt of God's goodness would have remained in their minds as evil seed, to produce its deadly fruit of sin and woe. {DA 764.2} The consequence of sin is not execution, it is death, it is the inevitable result.

elle's view is all are saved. Most other's view is God kills. These ideas are both in the ditch, one on each side of the road. God is not an executioner. The alpha of rebellion was making everything revolve around the physical, making nature God. The omega throws out the physical and makes it all spiritual claiming the physical is irrelavent. Both are in the ditch.

The 3 Angels' Message is all about the character of God and the consequences of sin. So yes, is God a killer? No. And this is part of the 3AM.

AMEN. Well said.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

APL, Dedication either made a mistake herself, or missed someone else's error in quoting from elsewhere. She honorably accepted the fact of her mistake, and went beyond merely admitting it to actually research the statement and ADD details on why she had been mistaken.

We are all human here, but some of us will never admit our mistakes. I don't remember having ever seen you admit an error on this forum even once. Confident you are. Are you teachable? Dedication's admission of error shows she is teachable. Which would I rather trust? a teachable person or one who has vain confidence?

I make mistakes. I've admitted to them here on the forum sometimes. I have no recollection of seeing you ever do so. I do not write this to put you down, no, not at all. I hope that you will be able to see how others see you so that you can take a closer look at yourself. Also, for others reading here, I hope that they, too, will consider the value of being teachable. Just as Jesus said in Revelation of Laodicea...



Besides, the statements of Mrs. White hold equal truth regardless of whom has quoted them. Your attempt to waive their message because Dedication brought the statement forward only shows that you are one step closer to a rejection of Mrs. White. Either Mrs. White's statements are true, or they are not. There can be no half-way point of truth between these.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

A better word to use to define this phenomena is a personal revelation.

A personal revelation is NOT the same as a private interpretation.

A private interpretation means the interpretation comes from you or from another source of a man.

A personal revelation, means that the interpretation you received comes from ABOVE == the Holy Spirit.

AV 2Pt 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private[idos, pertaining to self] interpretation[expilusis, explanation].

In another word to me this text is saying No interpretation(or explanation) can come to YOU from any other source than the Holy Spirit.

We have this other text that tells us that the anointing [which is the Holy Spirit] will teach us all things.

AV 1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

The the bottom line of this is we all need to personally learns to hear the voice of the Holy Spirit for ourself so He can teach us all truth personally.

Reading the Bible is also another source of a man. Despite we all know it is inspired, the fact remains that the Bible are words expressed by limited men. Especially the Bible in a TRANSLATION form which is a double measure of the source originated from MAN, which is words from a man digested and expressed by another man. Then if you have another man that reads from the translation and gives his interpretation or commentaries of that verse -- then we have a triple layers of words coming from man. Many Biblical commentaries are words not derived from personal REVELATION, but from private interpretation.

And then from what we see here on the forum, many interprets Ellen White commentaries which is really only a fourth level of eating man's flesh :

1st level = Holy Spirit speaks to Moses == Moses expressed what he heard in the Pentateuch
2nd level = Man reads Hebrew form of Pentateuch == he writes the English Translation of Pentateuch
3rd level = EGW(or any Biblical commenters) read English translation == they write Bible commentaries
4th level = Preacher or student read Bible commentaries == Comments on Bible commentary read
5th level and beyond = People reading others commentaries == comments on other peoples commentaries

THUS to avoid this "eating of man's flesh" (from level 2nd to 5th and beyond) you need to bring everything back to a level 1 where the Holy Spirit teaches you PERSONALLY the TRUTH of this text or commentary or whatever. And that can only be done via pondered on the subject(chew the cud) and receive some sort of confirmation from the Holy Spirit (= be based on a two hoofs =double witness) to become clean foods for YOU to eat.

We are call to be like Jesus who only spoke what He heard the Father saying and only did what He saw the Father doing. Nothing that Jesus said or did came from him or was initiated by him. That includes Jesus understanding (interpretation) of all scriptures. He was taught by the Holy Spirit starting from the Womb, and at the age of 30 years old (full maturity and the legal age to become a Priest) He began His ministry where all that He said and did only came from revelation.


Without a double witness from the Holy Spirit to confirm what my perception of the leading of His voice was saying while studying GreenC's words, than I need to categorize this as a "private interpretation". But If I receive a confirmation from the Lord in some ways than this moves it up as a "personal revelation".

It is possible that this perceived confirmation was a fabrication of my own imagination. That's will happen at times and it's also part of the learning process to better differentiate our voice from His voice. It is also the work of the Holy Spirit to correct this not man. The Holy Spirit may use a man for His purpose to correct.

If the confirmation didn't come from above, than yes, this becomes nothing more than a "private interpretation". Whether my confirmation is from above or not, I can share my perceived "personal revelation" with others where other matured believers knows that they need to take this as potential "private interpretation" until it is also confirm by the Lord so He alone can move it to the level of a "personal revelation" to you.

In another word like 1Jn 2:27 says, no man can do or should do this work of teaching (or convicting) anyone the truth but the Holy Spirit.


I hope this is clearer now.