It's not a challenge at all; I'm simply trying to come to an understanding of WHO INTERPRETS SCRIPTURE? If one claims (and so far everyone on this forum seems to agree) that Scripture is "not of any private interpretation" (meaning that one does not come to one's own conclusion regarding the meaning of Scripture) then that leads DIRECTLY to:

A) Who does?

and

B) What is the purpose of this forum?

I believe that God is responsible for leading us into all truth.

This means that I do not look to the pastor, the teacher, my parents, friends or anyone else, including Ellen White, for the meaning of God's Word. God Himself will give the meaning. (Philippians 3:15)
This is not to be understood that we CAN NOT get help from them, but that the final decision of what we believe ultimately rests with the individual.

Therefore, each individual MUST interpret Scripture for themselves.

(NOTE: There are pre-existing conditions that apply to the above which I have not enumerated, but will if you ask for them.)

I believe that the Judeo-Christian Scripture is the Word of God to man, and as such constitutes the "last word" on any argument.

This means several things, one of the most important being that the words of Scripture mean exactly what they say, in a literal sense, unless there is compelling evidence to interpret them in a spiritual or allegorical sense.

For example, 1 John 2:27 does not mean that we should not be taught by men, but that the group John was addressing did not need to be because:
1) they had previously received instruction. (1:5: 2:24)
2) they had received an anointing.

Also, the dietary laws in Lev. 11 are just that--dietary laws. They do not apply to methods of interpreting Scripture nor constitute some "double witness principle"




Very good question.

So, I am now out of time, and this post is way too long.

I agree with the bolded and underlined above.



I would of reworded that last sentence but I understand what you are getting at. The interpretation doesn’t come from us for we seek it from the Lord who will give us personally the meaning/interpretation.


Please do elaborate.



Here we differ. I came to understand that the Bible is mainly a literal account in the exception in areas where it is obvious that it is a parable or symbolic language. However all obvious literal accounts are at the same time have all spiritual meanings (interpretation) that surpasses the effect and importance of the literal.

Also, some historical accounts could have some words here and there that could be figurative(symbolic) in describing the event. For example did King Nebuchadnezzar eat literal grass like a beast for 7 years? I don’t know if this is even scientifically possible. I think he may or he may not. I do believe in the literal account that the king was beastlike in some form and did lose his mind for 7 years as there are some historical data showing this. Whether he ate literal grass or not; or a little or only grass in his diet …. I think is missing the point of the prophesy laid.

What I see is the Lord has always set up literal events to establish TYPES and Patterns of the things to come since the garden of Eden. What happened to Nebuchadnezzar was an additional piece of the puzzle that further pieces about the beasts kingdoms prophecies were shown later to Daniel. The fact that Daniel used the word “grass” to describe the incidence is significant because that’s the word(symbolic language) the Lord gave Daniel to describe the incidence. These literal event set as TYPES, their objects have symbolic meanings of the spiritual realm to come in the future. Often these TYPES reoccur in another event later in time at different levels (corporate and individual) with different players. At times a TYPE or Pattern can reoccur many times adding to the revelation until the last fulfillment comes to past to accomplish His full purpose and plan. I could list many examples of this if you request some as this is His form of communication spiritual things of His Plan to us since the beginning of time. Learning the Lord’s language in these symbols is one step to learn to recognize His voice and providential hand.

To continue back with Nebuchadnezzar eating grass as an example, we have the following objects : 7 times(Lev 26:18,21,24,28); Beast Kingdoms(main object/players in Daniels & Revelation); grass(1Pet 1:24 says “All men are like grass”). So a simple interpretation of this could be the beast kingdoms will rule over the earth and eat grass(the lives of man) for 7 times(360x7=2520years).

In Number 12:1-9, God says Himself that He speaks to prophets in “dark Speeches”(chiydah, puzzle or riddle) via vision and dreams(v.8). In this incidence quoted below, Aaron and Miriam was claiming equal authority as Moses. The reason they believed this is because the Lord had spoken through them also! The Lord came to settle this authority dispute between them quickly and clearly established Moses over Aaron and Miriam.

“AV Num 12:6 And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, [I] the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, [and] will speak unto him in a dream. 7 My servant Moses [is] not so, who [is] faithful in all mine house. 8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches(chiydah, puzzle or riddle); and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses? “

In this verse, I see two principles:

1. In this incidence the Lord establish the Pentateuch(aka law given to Moses) as an authority over prophets including Jesus who will speak and do according to the Law. It is the foundation laid to test all prophets and doctrines and teachings and interpretations (Is 8:20; Deut 13; and Deut 18);

2. Num 12:8 says that the Lord speaks in symbolism to prophets or anyone else that have dreams or visions.


Something to note is Jesus, the law-giver, continued to speak in symbolism via parables to the people that His disciples required further private explanation(interpretation) of the meanings of these symbolism in the parable.

This tells me that, at the least, that the prophets are spoken in symbolic language and all of the parables are symbolic and the book of revelation is obviously symbolic that these shouldn't be read literally.



I differ in my understanding and experiences. We are both taught by the same Holy Spirit and He teaches one truth to this. What shall we do?



That’s a crucial question to my opinion as we can all be easily deceived if we cannot recognized His voice apart from our own. Would you agree having the Lord confirming that He spoke to us by giving us a sign(double witness) would be a way that we would know that He spoke to us and it’s not our own imagination or thoughts?


I appreciate you taking the time to clarify your views above and pondering on this question further.

The statement assumes several points, including, but not limited to:
1) The individual desires a relationship with God.
2) The individual is open to the leading of the Holy Spirit.
3) Scripture is approached in a reasonable and logical manner, and the methods of interpretation are legitimate, recognized exegetical methods.


I would reject that approach to Scripture. Although I believe that a spiritual lesson may be drawn from any point of Scripture, the primary meaning of a passage is derived from the actual words used, ie: the words of Scripture mean exactly what they say.
There are passages that are intended to be symbolic/allegorical, but the meaning of these passages is derived from either other Scripture, or possibly history. In other words there is always another passage of Scripture to interpret the one in question.
When we start randomly interpreting Scripture symbolically or allegorically based on our "years of study" or "the Lord has shown me" or our past history as a rock musician we rapidly get into trouble.


I disagree. The Lord has sometimes set up types and patterns, but if you approach interpretation thinking that He always does you will be creating types and patterns where they do not exist.


Philippians 3:15


John 10:4,5,27 - "My sheep know my voice, and listen to it."

People are rejecting Ellen White's writings so they can interpret scriptures for themselves, yet obviously everyone interprets it differently.

Does this make truth "relative"?
Everyone hears and follows a different voice?

Yet, EGW does not conflict with Biblical truth --
How many times when we come to a passage that's difficult to understand does a hint from her writings clarify the passages and bring them all together in perfect harmony?


Her writings expose the snares of the last days that will entrap and deceive many. Reject her inspired writings at your own risk.
The Bible is the great map of truth, while her writings are like a "harbour" map, in full agreement with the great map, yet marking the reefs and dangers in greater detail so they will be recognized as we near the end of the time.

Maybe it might be an eye opener to hear what another writer (who channels demonic spirits) preparing the way for the "coming masters" had to say:
Alice Bailey in the section on "Religious Organizations in the New Age" declares:
"Eventually, there will appear the Church Universal....the prime work of the church is to teach, and teach ceaselessly, preserving the outer appearance in order to reach the many who are accustomed to church usages. Teachers must be trained, Bible knowledge must be spread; the sacraments must be mystically interpreted, and the power of the church to heal must be demonstrated." Externalization -501-512

When someone pointed those things out to me it made me realize more fully that satan would use SCRIPTURE (the misuse of it) in a powerful way to deceive people to accept his kingdom.


EGW warned:


As I see the things revealed to her coming to pass, it amazes me how people can now toss her writings out so they can adjust their understanding of the Bible more closely to the new age ways.

We are facing serious times in which we aren't just dealing with men's ideas, but against evil spiritual powers that appear as "angels of light" working through humans, and who are bent on promising everyone some sort of earthly "kingdom" and making them unready for the real Christ's coming in the clouds of glory.

God sent His message for these last days that we might have a Bible truth bulwark against the many false interpretations.

Here are a few things to keep in mind:


People reject things for many reasons, and I fail to see the authority by which you ascribe motive.

Matthew 7:1


It may surprise you to learn that there are a large number of people who find that EGW in fact IS in conflict with Biblical truth, and can demonstrate it.

If you "interpret" the Bible from an EGW perspective, she will naturally never be in conflict with it. If, however, you read Scripture for what it actually says, always demanding a clear and logical rationale for your understanding, you will come to an entirely different conclusion.

If you want to pursue this topic revive the "Re: Why or why not accept Mrs. White as a prophet?" thread.
http://www.maritime-sda-online.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=169984#Post169984

JAK: Mrs. White told us how she wanted to be used and how she did NOT want to be used. I have seen many of these so called places of "Conflict with the Bible" but they are all in ways that she says she does NOT want to be used.

There appears to be 3 correct ways to use the Bible. First is exegesis or what it meant to the original audience. Second is a reapplication of the principle to a similar situation. Third is a more loose way where you are not using the text in a specific application of the text but using the words since it fits the situation well.

Prophets tend not to do exegesis. Mrs. White would over and over again tell us that this was our job. She would say comments such as "My writings are not to answer questions like 'what is the meaning of the daily?'" She would only use exegesis if it was required for the specific topic she was discussing.

What Mrs. White tended to do was make applications of the Biblical principles over history and to what the church was dealing with. Then at times Mrs. White would build her arguments then conclude with the words of a text that fits. Thus Mrs. White usually does the second and third of the 3 ways to use the text. But too many (from both her supporters and defectors) try to use her for exegesis. They do not see what she is saying and how she is using the text. Even though she warns us that if we use her writings that way we will get into trouble.

Also, Mrs. White was NOT a fundamentalist. She and her friend Elder Haskell would go around and around on this. Then there was also a group of pastors who she kept complaining that they were using her words but not understanding her message. That they were using her words as authority but they were spreading their message through her words. In 1923 most of the church followed Elder Haskell's understanding. But also these pastors who she complained about using her words but to spread their message and not hers has become very popular among a lot of people.

Dale Ratzlaf and Desmond Ford and others have gotten into trouble because they read the words of Paul, but are reading into these words the ideas from the Church Fathers from around the year 135 AD when the Church and Synagogue split, the views of St. Augustine, and the views of the reformers, especially Martin Luther and thus have missed Paul's message.

But many of us who love Mrs. White are reading her words as interpreted by this group of pastors who she and Willie were complaining that they did not understand her message and were using her words to spread their message.

Pretty sure I'm not following what you are trying to say here...?

The misuse = "they were using her words but not understanding her message"

People who use EGW in a "proof texting" method, will lift a sentence or two to "prove" their idea even though that was not the message in which the sentence was located.

People who criticize EGW will lift a sentence or two to "prove" she is contradicting the Bible when a fuller reading of her message shows she was not.

People who study the Bible and arrive at conclusions that are opposed and condemned in the SOP are more likely to reject the SOP as uninspired.

People who enjoy lifestyle choices that are opposed and condemned in the SOP are more likely to reject the SOP as uninspired.

You are GREATLY mistaken. You do not need EGW.

John said, "And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name." (John 20:30-31)

The book of John bears testimony that Jesus of Nazareth is the way, the truth and the life; and that your hope in Him (that is, Jesus) is now and will forever be your salvation. Please, do not add to the word of God, lest you be found wanting.

///