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
Kevin H
Kevin H
New York
Posts: 625
Joined: November 2004
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), 3,150 guests, and 5 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 5 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions [Re: Rick H] #194236
07/17/21 12:09 PM
07/17/21 12:09 PM
Matthew 10vs8  Offline
SDA
Active Member 2021

Regular Member
Joined: Jun 2021
Posts: 85
Ili Ili, AS
Originally Posted by Green Cochoa


NT-2:

Originally Posted by The Holy Bible
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. (Matthew 6:13, KJV)


Same song, second verse. Ellen White again confirms this--and, again, by quoting from a different translation.

Originally Posted by Ellen White
"Bring us not into temptation, but
deliver us from the evil one."
Matthew 6:13, R.V.

Temptation is enticement to sin, and this does not proceed from God, but from Satan and from the evil of our own hearts. "God cannot be tempted with evil, and He Himself tempteth no man." James 1:13, R.V. {MB 116.2}


In this case, perhaps, we would like to be delivered from both evil and the Evil One--but, living in the world as we are, the former waits until the coming of Christ to be fulfilled. Our prayers should more specially focus on deliverance from Satan in our present lives.


Again, this is like the first. Do you know that sister White quoted the KJB exactly on several occasions, and not once said that the KJB translation was in "error", nor implied it?

"Again he writes: "And it came to pass, that, as he was praying in a certain place, when he ceased, one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples. And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil." Jesus repeated this prayer with great solemnity, and then gave his disciples an illustration of the privilege and success of prayer. He gave this lesson to encourage his disciples to be persevering in offering their petitions, and to encourage all in continual striving in prayer. {RH, November 19, 1895 par. 1} "

""When ye pray," He said, "say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil." {ST, March 29, 1905 par. 2}"

" Christ prayed to His Father in behalf of His followers, "I pray not that Thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that Thou shouldst keep them from the evil." Sin and pollution abound on every hand, and daily, hourly, the prayer should ascend to heaven, "Deliver us from evil." The offering of this prayer by one who realizes his weakness makes the temptation of the enemy powerless. {ST, March 29, 1905 par. 10} "

" "And it came to pass, that, as he was praying in a certain place, when he ceased, one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples." Jesus answered them in the words of the Lord's prayer. "When ye pray," he said, "say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil." {YI, December 7, 1899 par. 1} "

etc, etc, etc.

Sister White in the quotation you gave, was making a certain point about the devil, and utilizing the RV was better for her point there. She never once stated that the KJB was in "error" in is translation, and never stated that the RV was superior or that the KJB was "inferior" in that area.

If you read the actual context of the prayer, let me show you the real evil (that satan tries to get us to carry out), ready???:

Luk 11:2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.
Luk 11:3 Give us day by day our daily bread.
Luk 11:4 And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.

Mat 6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
Mat 6:10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
Mat 6:11 Give us this day our daily bread.
Mat 6:12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
Mat 6:13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
Mat 6:14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:
Mat 6:15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Did you see what the "evil" was?

It is unforgiveness. Satan (and selfishness) attempts to lead us to be unforgiving. You know, if you search the writings of sister White long enough, I am sure you will find the same thing. smile Why not go look and spend some real time doing that, instead of doing what you are doing here.

Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions [Re: Rick H] #194237
07/17/21 12:10 PM
07/17/21 12:10 PM
Matthew 10vs8  Offline
SDA
Active Member 2021

Regular Member
Joined: Jun 2021
Posts: 85
Ili Ili, AS
Originally Posted by Green Cochoa


NT-3:

Originally Posted by The Holy Bible
And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people. (Acts 12:4, KJV)


The Greek word here is πάσχα (pascha). That means Passover, not Easter! This error is so blatant and straightforward as to be widely attested by scholars and more correctly translated (as Passover) by many other Bible versions, including: ASV, AMP, AMPC, CSB, CEB, Darby, DLNT, ERV, EHV, ESV, GNT, Phillips, Mounce, NASB, NCV, NIV, etc.

There was really no excuse for this one. None. It's an embarrassment.


Again, this is your misunderstanding. "Easter" simply comes from Tyndales "ester", and "easterlambe" (1 Corinthians 5:7)

1 Corinthians 5:7 Pourge therfore the olde leven that ye maye be newe dowe as ye are swete breed. For Christ oure esterlambe is offered vp for vs

The word means "passover" as Christ fulfilled it.

The German Luther says the same:

1Co 5:7 Darum feget den alten Sauerteig aus, auf da? ihr ein neuer Teig seid, gleichwie ihr unges?uert seid. Denn wir haben auch ein Osterlamm, das ist Christus, f?r uns geopfert.

"ester" (Ostern; Germanic) means from the sunrise (dawn), or east, from etymology Online, "from Eastre (Northumbrian Eostre), from Proto-Germanic *austron-, "dawn," ...". For Christ is the sun of righteousness. He comes from the east victoriously. He arose just before sunrise, and is the light of the world. That you do not understand the history of "Easter" and why it is in the KJB means you should go study some more. Please. The real "embarrassment" is your argument from ignorance.

Do you know who coined the word "passover" in English? Do you know what the Anglo/Saxon/German word "ostern" means? Tyndale, loved to use multiple words in English, etc to translate from one Hebrew, Syriac or Greek word. The KJB is just a lst holdover of an older word. It exists in the Bishop's Bible (3 places; John 11:55, "And the Iewes Easter was nye at hande, and many went out of the countrey vp to Hierusale before the Easter, to purifie them selues."; and Acts 12:4, "Act_12:4 And when he had caught hym, he put hym in pryson also, and delyuered hym to foure quaternions of souldiers to be kept, intendyng after Easter to bryng hym foorth to the people."), as others also.

The words are defined by scripture, not by man's present use (misuse, misunderstanding).

'Easter' (shortened form of 'easterlamb' 1 Cor. 5:7, and a carry over use/translation from Tyndale, Matthew, Genevans, Luther) is just another word for passover (as fulfilled in Christ Jesus). You might find this article helpful, though I do not necesarily agree with everything in it - Riches of Grace: Easter - http://www.biblicaltruth.info/Articles/Easter.htm

There is no mystery here. Simply trace the word in any concordance, and let the Bible define the word. It isn't hard, or complicated to the serious and prayerful student of God's word.

It is not an "error". Neither is it an "inferior" translation. It is simply a differing translation. The context is clear when it is used. It refers to the entire week of the first feast of Israel (Leviticus 23).

The KJB translators in Acts 12:4, the ?old Ecclesiastical word? Easter was preferred to Passover which is pascha in the Greek (Strong?s #3957). Their stated reason for using Easter was that ?it may be understood even of the very vulgar.? They were simply following King James? Instructions which stated: ?The old ecclesiastical words to be kept; as the word church, not to be translated congregation, &c.? They were also following the King James? instruction to closely follow former English translations such as the Bishops?, Coverdale and Tyndale Bibles which also translated pascha as Easter.

You see the common (vulgar, How's that for a word!) people understood 'ester' just fine. it was not until modern day shenanigans that people make a hub-bub about all this riggamorole.

I have an entire study on this one verse, and one word, just from the Bible, and also from the SoP/ToJ and history, confirming what I just said. Am I going to post all that for this? No. It would be a waste of time.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
There are actually many more errors one could find
I notice the words "one could find". Yes, it does seem like you tried awfully hard to "find" what you were looking for. I think you failed.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
but I will stop here
Ok.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
as I have other burdens on my time.
Ok. Me too. I do not have the time to simply waste as I just did disproving what someone simply calls "errors".

Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions [Re: Rick H] #194238
07/17/21 12:10 PM
07/17/21 12:10 PM
Matthew 10vs8  Offline
SDA
Active Member 2021

Regular Member
Joined: Jun 2021
Posts: 85
Ili Ili, AS
Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
Let me wrap up with a summary of what you asked and my overall response to it.

Originally Posted by Matthew 10vs8
"superior translation" is subjective, and moreso since you gave no standard or foundation by which to test that which is supposed to be superior to that which is supposed to be inferior.

Please produce 3 "superior translations" in the OT, and 3 "superior translations" in the NT, and give the foundational ruler, or standard by which you measured against to determine the 'superiority' and 'inferiority'. Thank you.

(PS, How many Bibles (and in what languages) do I need, so that I can have all of God's words, and finally have no errors when combined, and how do I determine what is and is not errors in these that I am to have, so that I can take out all of the errors and have a pure Bible without error, or do you suggest that there will always be error no matter what, or do you suggest that the original autograph's are alone without error,or do you suggest the original speech before being written are without error (like God/Moses, Jeremiah/Baruch, Paul/Tertias, etc)?


As you can see, I have been easily able to find superior translations.
No you most certainly did not! You merely asserted that again. Even sister White herself was not giving superior translations, and she never once says in citing a differing version that it was "superior". You are simply asserting, using her in an incorrect manner.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
These are frequently supportable by Ellen White herself.
1. no they are not. 2. That is an incorrect way to use those writings! I personally think that even the White estate would be appalled at your use. That is just my own opinion on the matter.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
But anyone who can read the Bible in its original languages can give testimony to these truths.
O yippie, an original languages only person. I have to know the Hebrew and koine Greek , to "really" know what it means. Nonsense. In fact, that is where most people who do not know those languages, or very little (like a 2nd year language student), get into trouble. I also doubt very much that you can read the languages in their original forms. I can simply give a test. I can produce pictures, of Hebrew and koine Greek in original documents, and give you approx. 6 hours to translate them. I doubt I would ever hear from you. How do I think this? Simple. I do it all the time with those who claim to be able to read such. Reading a polyglot, or interlinear or referring to a concordance, lexicon, ain't nuthin' like reading actual mss, codices, papyri, etc.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
I am thankful to have been privileged to take courses in Hebrew, Aramaic (Syriac), and Greek.
I think you should get your money back if you spent any. If it was free, I think they ought to be closed down.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
I am still learning, and there is much more to learn.
I finally agree with you 100%.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
But Mrs. White helps us understand that there are errors in our Bibles
Stepped beyond the bounds again. She never said any such thing. You simply put those words in her mouth/writings.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
, and she never once indicates that it is word-perfect in its translation.
She simply called it the "common" bible/version. God's word says:

Mar_12:37 David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son? And the common people heard him gladly.

Ah yes. The "common" people with a "common" Bible. Everything else just seems like Babylon and confusion these days.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
We are cautioned, however, not to teach that some parts are inspired and other parts not--it is not up to us to set our judgment above the Word of God.
What did you just try to do with "sacrifice" in Daniel? Never the less, that is irrelevant to the discussion.

2Ti 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
2Ti 3:14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

I believe it.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
That said, anyone can easily see that some of these errors should be fixed.
I could not disagree with you more.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
If Ellen White, who was inspired by God, tells us of a mistake--doesn't that mean that there is?
I do not see her using the word "mistake" in your examples. Anywhere. You "supplied" that word.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
It is my understanding that there will always be some mistakes.
Wow. I do not want what you believe. Ever.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
No translation can ever be perfect.
It's why I gave the example of:

Act_26:14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

Jesus is speaking in Hebrew to Saul. Luke, by inspiration of the Holy Ghost (giver of tongues (languages) and interpretation of tongues (languages)), translates that Hebrew into koine Greek.

Is what Jesus (Deity) said perfectly given in Hebrew?

Is what Luke, by inspiration of the Holy Ghost (Deity) "interpreted" perfectly in koine Greek?

Which one is not perfect?

If both are, then what you just said is not entirely true or accurate, is it?

What about the Ten Commandments? Oh wait, you already said that was imperfectly translated. ...

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
You may not know, but I have been involved in Bible translation work for a number of years now.
Good and bad from what I have seen. It is good that you do that work so that others may have the word of God in their mother language. Yet, what I have seen of the logic is not so good, even bad, and needs to be fixed. I think the "errors" lie with your understanding most often, not the translation of the KJB.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
We are nearing completion, and hope to finish it this year. The language to which I am translating has no verb conjugations, no plurals, no articles, a much-reduced set of prepositions and conjunctions (no words for: lest, of, etc.), no way to distinguish between restrictive and nonrestrictive dependent clauses, no way to say words like "brother" or "sister" without imposing age/status (older/younger) on them, and no way to use common pronouns for royalty or deity. The language itself forces decisions no translator would like to make. We must, because of the grammar, both add and subtract some words or information. For example, was Goliath's brother older or younger? It might not be important, but after translation, it has a 50% chance of being right--it's just guesswork. There is no way to omit this within the language.
Just answer this one question. What is the language you are translating the Bible into, and what are the sources you are translating from (be specific, I would mss, codie, etc)?

Perhaps, it's best to hand them a KJB and help them learn the language of the common people, KJB "English", which is over all the world do to England being that empire on which the sun never set.

If not possible, well, do your best in translation.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
Now, given the language I have just described, do you think a perfect translation to it can exist? Don't you think it would be better if people read the original language--or maybe, even, just read the Bible in English? But they don't know those languages. They don't have those options.
Some languages are so distorted and amalgamated as to lose at lot. Should we translate a bible into 'pidgin'? I do not think so.

God gave the OT in Hebrew (some Syriack, very minor).

God gave the NT in koine Greek.

God gave the whole Bible in "common" English (England English).

Most people cannot ever read Masoretic Hebrew or koine Greek. God never asked anyone to do so. That's why he gave the gifts.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
Neither is the English translation without error.
I disagree.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
Jesus commissioned his disciples to carry the Gospel to every nation, tongue, and people.
Yep.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
That means we must translate it into every language.
Yes and no. The Gospel is not the whole Bible. The Gospel is a portion of it. One can simply speak the Gospel in a few words in their language without a whole translation of a Bible. Is it neat and a blessing to have such an Bible translated into Mandarin Chinese, Farsi, Arabic, etc? Sure. Yet, there is no injunction to print the Bible into every language.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
Mrs. White's books, as least in part, are translated into at least 135 languages. And I wish we had more translations of her writings.
Sure, but I think the English are doing just fine. From where I am at, there could even be some good Samoan translations, and I know a few people who are working on those here. Those that exist for the most part in that language are not that great, even sloppy.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
God bless,

Green Cochoa.
I accept.

Now, I pray that the truth of what I have shared reaches you without too much offense and you consider what I have said in response in all the evidences given and see if they make more sense that what you provided. I write rather straight forward. Maybe I am harder than I need to be. I am simply trying to take this seriously. Anyways, may the love of God always be shed abroad in your heart, and be found in Him in the day to come, to stand upon the Sea of Glass - https://archive.org/download/sea-of-glass/Sea%20of%20Glass.pptx

[ps. if you find many spelling errors, it was getting late]

Last edited by Matthew 10vs8; 07/17/21 12:14 PM.
Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions [Re: Rick H] #194239
07/17/21 12:51 PM
07/17/21 12:51 PM
Green Cochoa  Offline
SDA
Active Member 2021

5500+ Member
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,003
The Orient
Matthew,

I'll be honest. I didn't read all of your lengthy posts. I didn't need to. I read enough to learn that you present yourself as an expert debater and that you do not believe Ellen White. I am not an expert debater, and if you will not accept Mrs. White's writings, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, I can never hope to persuade you as a non-prophet. My time will be better spent elsewhere.

May God help each of us to avoid the greatest deception possible--the belief that we are right when we are all wrong.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.


We can receive of heaven's light only as we are willing to be emptied of self. We can discern the character of God, and accept Christ by faith, only as we consent to the bringing into captivity of every thought to the obedience of Christ. And to all who do this, the Holy Spirit is given without measure. In Christ "dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in Him." [Colossians 2:9, 10.] {GW 57.1} -- Ellen White.
Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions [Re: Green Cochoa] #194242
07/17/21 09:23 PM
07/17/21 09:23 PM
Matthew 10vs8  Offline
SDA
Active Member 2021

Regular Member
Joined: Jun 2021
Posts: 85
Ili Ili, AS
Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
Matthew,

I'll be honest. I didn't read all of your lengthy posts. I didn't need to. I read enough to learn that you present yourself as an expert debater and that you do not believe Ellen White. I am not an expert debater, and if you will not accept Mrs. White's writings, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, I can never hope to persuade you as a non-prophet. My time will be better spent elsewhere.

May God help each of us to avoid the greatest deception possible--the belief that we are right when we are all wrong.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
I am a Bible (KJB) Seventh-day Adventist. Here's what the Bible says:

Pro 18:13? He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.?

Pro 18:17? He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him.?

You said, "I'll be honest. I didn't read all of your lengthy posts."

You just failed of what scripture told you to do.

You said, "... that you do not believe Ellen White."

That is probably the most hurtful thing you said. It cut deep. The LORD knoweth my heart and what I know and acknowledge publicly to be true about sister White, and how I do indeed believe, having tested as the LORD asked me to. You overstepped by a long distance in that statement. I know for certain, and without a doubt, she was (being asleep now) the messenger of the LORD, and more than a prophet(ess). I can even tell you what the food for worms vision (1856) actually means and it's soon fulfillment. Even the White Estate doesn't understand it, though I sent the research to them from AFmin, when I ministered there.

I read every single word you gave. I responded with deep study and evidence to every point. That you did not do the same for me, shows your disdain for me (but to let you in on my thinking the entire time I wrote, I expected it of you to do what you did, though I had hoped you'd disappoint me by at least reading all of it, even though I do not expect you to respond to it).

My answers stand, and will stand the test. I leave all for others to now judge between us and the positions we hold.

Last edited by Matthew 10vs8; 07/17/21 09:24 PM.
Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions [Re: Rick H] #194243
07/17/21 11:32 PM
07/17/21 11:32 PM
Green Cochoa  Offline
SDA
Active Member 2021

5500+ Member
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,003
The Orient
Well, if you say you will accept Mrs. White, then perhaps you may reconsider some of your words that have been stout against the truth and against me.

Here's a portion of what you said on this subject:

Originally Posted by Matthew 10vs8
"Kill" is perfectly valid. Why? Becuase God's Ten Commandments are eternal principles, they also exist in Heaven, and as such, even to take the life of one of God's lesser creatures (cat, dog, cow, etc) is to break the commandment, since He was the one who gave them all life.

The commandment is not simply against "murder" (which deals in only, or exclusively, things of mankind, or angel-kind). I could never say, not to "murder" a dog, a cat, a cow, etc. I could only say not to "kill" them.

Your finite human judgment is in error. What you "think" is an "error" in translation, is far superior in the context of scripture and of the Heavenly matters.

...

You admitted that the NIV was "malignant". Do you think it might affect doctrine in the Ten Commandments, which would affect the doctrines of Heaven (3rd) also, especially in the New Heaven and New Earth (here) to merely address "murder" rather than "kill". Some persons I know of, teach that in the New Heavens and New Earth animal death continues, but not human death (since they are evolutionary minded and start in Genesis that way).

Yes, the NT does also give "thou shalt do no murder" (Matthew 19:18), but that was because Jesus was dealing with human beings, not addressing the killing of animals (for which at that time was still required for sacrifices). Murder is a form of killing. Yet not all killing is murder.


You would, by this, contradict yourself just as much as you contradict the truth. You seem to believe that it is "required" to break the Ten Commandments. If you truly believe this, and continue to do so after this post in which I will share something important from Mrs. White on the matter, then I will see no need of spending my precious time further on the topic. If, on the other hand, you are willing to accept the truth, apologize for your errors or mistakes, and re-establish your position on a better foundation, then I will be willing to continue this conversation with you, and I might even read more of what you've posted.

It is possible that you had not seen this material from Mrs. White, despite the general tenor of what you've posted indicating that your general familiarity with her writings.

From Gospel Workers:

Originally Posted by Ellen White
In time past there have been presented to me for my opinion many non-essential, fanciful theories. Some have advocated the theory that believers should pray with their eyes open. Others teach that, because those who ministered anciently in sacred office were required, upon entering the sanctuary, to remove their sandals and wash their feet, believers now should remove their shoes when entering the house of worship. Still others refer to the sixth commandment, and declare that even the insects that torment human beings should not be killed. And some have put forth the theory that the redeemed will not have gray hair--as if this were a matter of any importance. {GW 313.1}

I am instructed to say that these theories are the production of minds unlearned in the first principles of the gospel. By such theories the enemy strives to eclipse the great truths for this time. {GW 313.2}

Those who in their preaching pass by the great truths of God's word to speak of minor matters, are not preaching the gospel, but are dealing in idle sophistry. Let not our ministers spend time in the discussion of such matters. Let those who have any question as to what they should teach, any question as to the subjects upon which they should dwell, go to the discourses of the great Teacher, and follow His lines of thought. The subjects that Jesus regarded as essential are the subjects that we are to urge home today. We are to encourage our hearers to dwell upon those subjects which are of eternal moment. {GW 313.3}



From Selected Messages:

Originally Posted by Ellen White
Letters have come to me, asking in regard to the teaching of some who say that nothing that has life should be killed, not even insects, however annoying or distressing they may be. Is it possible that anyone claims that God has given him this message to give to the people? The Lord has never given any human being such a message. God has told no one that it is a sin to kill the insects which destroy our peace and rest. In all His teaching, Christ gave no message of this character, and His disciples are to teach only what He commanded them. {1SM 170.3}

There are those who are always seeking to engage in controversy. This is the sum of their religion. They are filled with a desire to produce something new and strange. They dwell upon matters of the smallest consequence, exercising upon these their sharp, controversial talents. {1SM 170.4}

Idle tales are brought in as important truths, and by some they are actually set up as tests. Thus controversy is created, and minds are diverted from present truth. Satan knows that if he can get men and women absorbed in trifling details, greater questions will be left unheeded. He will furnish plenty of material for the attention of those who are willing to think upon trifling, unimportant subjects. The minds of the Pharisees were absorbed with questions of no moment. They passed by the precious truths of God's Word to discuss the traditionary lore handed down from generation to generation, which in no way concerned their salvation. And so today, while precious moments are passing into eternity, the great questions of salvation are overlooked for some idle tale. {1SM 170.5}


Now, you seem quite willing to pronounce judgment on this matter saying that it is a sin to kill animals, which is why the Ten Commandments should say "kill" in place of "murder." But Ellen White speaks to you and says that God has not given you such a message. She seems to know your type--always seeking controversy.

If the Ten Commandments actually mean that we should not kill animals, why does Mrs. White say God hasn't given anyone such a message? Did He not give everyone those commandments? On the other hand, if the commandments should actually mean that we cannot kill animals, then why does Mrs. White say it is not a sin to break the commandments?

Please understand that I have no desire to argue. But I do desire to "rightly divide" the Word of Truth and to have a correct concept of God and of His attributes.

Unfortunately, interpreting that "kill" is the meaning intended in the Ten Commandments would mean that God has commanded us to sin, because God commanded the killing of animals, and even of people in certain circumstances. God commanded the people, for example, to kill the Sabbath breaker by stoning, and to kill Achan in the same manner. He commanded them to kill the Amalekites and others. Furthermore, God kills. Does God break His own commandments?

Matthew, you seem quite willing to conflate the Hebrew words, which you cannot easily see when reading English, but have zero toleration for the difference between my usage of "mistake" and Ellen White's usage of "error." To you I was to be reproached for my word choice. You have shown yourself more willing to cavil than to understand the truth; more willing to debate, and to win at all costs, than to listen and to learn. Is this not why you have supported your views against Mrs. White by the world's scholars? Did Mrs. White err in telling us that the word "sacrifice" should not be in those texts in Daniel because the academics tells us why it is there?

You would not accept, even with her clear statement that the word did not belong in that text, that I had a reason to think it was an error in the KJV translation. I think the real reason you would not accept this goes beyond the truth itself to your "win the debate at all costs" mindset. You appear to have entrenched yourself in a position where you intend to defend your views regardless of any evidence shown you.

Honestly, I'd rather lose the debate than to have that kind of attitude. Naturally, if I have been in error, then I might need to humbly accept it. Yet if that is the price of learning and having the pure truth, I want to be ready to pay it. I don't really care if I win or lose--as I said, I'm not an expert debater. I care about the truth. My views have often changed as I have continued learning, and I am willing to see them change yet further. But I can find no safety in arguments that oppose Mrs. White or the Bible.

I do wonder if you might actually be someone who has participated in this forum before under a different moniker. But, as I've said, I'm willing to be gracious if I see that you are willing to accept truth.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.


We can receive of heaven's light only as we are willing to be emptied of self. We can discern the character of God, and accept Christ by faith, only as we consent to the bringing into captivity of every thought to the obedience of Christ. And to all who do this, the Holy Spirit is given without measure. In Christ "dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in Him." [Colossians 2:9, 10.] {GW 57.1} -- Ellen White.
Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions [Re: Green Cochoa] #194244
07/18/21 02:12 AM
07/18/21 02:12 AM
Matthew 10vs8  Offline
SDA
Active Member 2021

Regular Member
Joined: Jun 2021
Posts: 85
Ili Ili, AS
Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
Well, if you say you will accept Mrs. White, then perhaps you may reconsider some of your words that have been stout against the truth and against me.

Here's a portion of what you said on this subject:

Originally Posted by Matthew 10vs8
"Kill" is perfectly valid. Why? Becuase God's Ten Commandments are eternal principles, they also exist in Heaven, and as such, even to take the life of one of God's lesser creatures (cat, dog, cow, etc) is to break the commandment, since He was the one who gave them all life.

The commandment is not simply against "murder" (which deals in only, or exclusively, things of mankind, or angel-kind). I could never say, not to "murder" a dog, a cat, a cow, etc. I could only say not to "kill" them.

Your finite human judgment is in error. What you "think" is an "error" in translation, is far superior in the context of scripture and of the Heavenly matters.

...

You admitted that the NIV was "malignant". Do you think it might affect doctrine in the Ten Commandments, which would affect the doctrines of Heaven (3rd) also, especially in the New Heaven and New Earth (here) to merely address "murder" rather than "kill". Some persons I know of, teach that in the New Heavens and New Earth animal death continues, but not human death (since they are evolutionary minded and start in Genesis that way).

Yes, the NT does also give "thou shalt do no murder" (Matthew 19:18), but that was because Jesus was dealing with human beings, not addressing the killing of animals (for which at that time was still required for sacrifices). Murder is a form of killing. Yet not all killing is murder.


You would, by this, contradict yourself just as much as you contradict the truth. You seem to believe that it is "required" to break the Ten Commandments. If you truly believe this, and continue to do so after this post in which I will share something important from Mrs. White on the matter, then I will see no need of spending my precious time further on the topic. If, on the other hand, you are willing to accept the truth, apologize for your errors or mistakes, and re-establish your position on a better foundation, then I will be willing to continue this conversation with you, and I might even read more of what you've posted.

It is possible that you had not seen this material from Mrs. White, despite the general tenor of what you've posted indicating that your general familiarity with her writings.

From Gospel Workers:

Originally Posted by Ellen White
In time past there have been presented to me for my opinion many non-essential, fanciful theories. Some have advocated the theory that believers should pray with their eyes open. Others teach that, because those who ministered anciently in sacred office were required, upon entering the sanctuary, to remove their sandals and wash their feet, believers now should remove their shoes when entering the house of worship. Still others refer to the sixth commandment, and declare that even the insects that torment human beings should not be killed. And some have put forth the theory that the redeemed will not have gray hair--as if this were a matter of any importance. {GW 313.1}

I am instructed to say that these theories are the production of minds unlearned in the first principles of the gospel. By such theories the enemy strives to eclipse the great truths for this time. {GW 313.2}

Those who in their preaching pass by the great truths of God's word to speak of minor matters, are not preaching the gospel, but are dealing in idle sophistry. Let not our ministers spend time in the discussion of such matters. Let those who have any question as to what they should teach, any question as to the subjects upon which they should dwell, go to the discourses of the great Teacher, and follow His lines of thought. The subjects that Jesus regarded as essential are the subjects that we are to urge home today. We are to encourage our hearers to dwell upon those subjects which are of eternal moment. {GW 313.3}



From Selected Messages:

Originally Posted by Ellen White
Letters have come to me, asking in regard to the teaching of some who say that nothing that has life should be killed, not even insects, however annoying or distressing they may be. Is it possible that anyone claims that God has given him this message to give to the people? The Lord has never given any human being such a message. God has told no one that it is a sin to kill the insects which destroy our peace and rest. In all His teaching, Christ gave no message of this character, and His disciples are to teach only what He commanded them. {1SM 170.3}

There are those who are always seeking to engage in controversy. This is the sum of their religion. They are filled with a desire to produce something new and strange. They dwell upon matters of the smallest consequence, exercising upon these their sharp, controversial talents. {1SM 170.4}

Idle tales are brought in as important truths, and by some they are actually set up as tests. Thus controversy is created, and minds are diverted from present truth. Satan knows that if he can get men and women absorbed in trifling details, greater questions will be left unheeded. He will furnish plenty of material for the attention of those who are willing to think upon trifling, unimportant subjects. The minds of the Pharisees were absorbed with questions of no moment. They passed by the precious truths of God's Word to discuss the traditionary lore handed down from generation to generation, which in no way concerned their salvation. And so today, while precious moments are passing into eternity, the great questions of salvation are overlooked for some idle tale. {1SM 170.5}


Now, you seem quite willing to pronounce judgment on this matter saying that it is a sin to kill animals, which is why the Ten Commandments should say "kill" in place of "murder." But Ellen White speaks to you and says that God has not given you such a message. She seems to know your type--always seeking controversy.

If the Ten Commandments actually mean that we should not kill animals, why does Mrs. White say God hasn't given anyone such a message? Did He not give everyone those commandments? On the other hand, if the commandments should actually mean that we cannot kill animals, then why does Mrs. White say it is not a sin to break the commandments?

Please understand that I have no desire to argue. But I do desire to "rightly divide" the Word of Truth and to have a correct concept of God and of His attributes.

Unfortunately, interpreting that "kill" is the meaning intended in the Ten Commandments would mean that God has commanded us to sin, because God commanded the killing of animals, and even of people in certain circumstances. God commanded the people, for example, to kill the Sabbath breaker by stoning, and to kill Achan in the same manner. He commanded them to kill the Amalekites and others. Furthermore, God kills. Does God break His own commandments?

Matthew, you seem quite willing to conflate the Hebrew words, which you cannot easily see when reading English, but have zero toleration for the difference between my usage of "mistake" and Ellen White's usage of "error." To you I was to be reproached for my word choice. You have shown yourself more willing to cavil than to understand the truth; more willing to debate, and to win at all costs, than to listen and to learn. Is this not why you have supported your views against Mrs. White by the world's scholars? Did Mrs. White err in telling us that the word "sacrifice" should not be in those texts in Daniel because the academics tells us why it is there?

You would not accept, even with her clear statement that the word did not belong in that text, that I had a reason to think it was an error in the KJV translation. I think the real reason you would not accept this goes beyond the truth itself to your "win the debate at all costs" mindset. You appear to have entrenched yourself in a position where you intend to defend your views regardless of any evidence shown you.

Honestly, I'd rather lose the debate than to have that kind of attitude. Naturally, if I have been in error, then I might need to humbly accept it. Yet if that is the price of learning and having the pure truth, I want to be ready to pay it. I don't really care if I win or lose--as I said, I'm not an expert debater. I care about the truth. My views have often changed as I have continued learning, and I am willing to see them change yet further. But I can find no safety in arguments that oppose Mrs. White or the Bible.

I do wonder if you might actually be someone who has participated in this forum before under a different moniker. But, as I've said, I'm willing to be gracious if I see that you are willing to accept truth.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Green Cochoa,

Can you point to any place where I stated it was a sin to "kill" insects on this present earth?

If you will carefully read my statements, on the matter of "kill" and the eternal principles, it refers to two places [1] Heaven (3rd) where God dwells with creatures, like 'dogs', 'cats', etc., and [2] New Heaven and New Earth when there is no more death. It would be a sin to "kill" God's creatures under or in those places circumstances.

If you carefully read sister White's statements, she is speaking about it is no sin to "kill" insects on this present fallen earth, in other words, the "world" that now is, which is "reserved" for the fire to come.

I have no contradiction, but you still have the misunderstanding not merely of what I have said, but of the commandment itself.

Sister White uses the exact phrase, "Thou shalt not kill." in many places.

"Satan was at hand to suggest that he must be deceived, for the divine law commands, "Thou shalt not kill," and God would not require what He had once forbidden. {PP 148.3}"

" "VI. Thou shalt not kill. {ST, October 15, 1894 par. 9} ... If this code of morals had been respected and obeyed, the world would not now be in the state in which it is,--corrupted under the inhabitants thereof. {ST, October 15, 1894 par. 14} ... Christ then proceeds to show that the commandments are exceeding broad, and penetrate to the very motives that control the heart. {ST, October 15, 1894 par. 16}"

""Thou shalt not kill." {PP 308.4}
All acts of injustice that tend to shorten life; the spirit of hatred and revenge, or the indulgence of any passion that leads to injurious acts toward others, or causes us even to wish them harm (for "whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer"); a selfish neglect of caring for the needy or suffering; all self-indulgence or unnecessary deprivation or excessive labor that tends to injure health--all these are, to a greater or less degree, violations of the sixth commandment. {PP 308.5}"

""Thou shalt not kill. {1SP 236.4}"

""Thou shalt not kill. {3SG 266.3}"

""Thou shalt not kill." {MB 56.1}"

etc, etc.

What was the context of my statements?

What is the context of sister White's statements?

"This earth has been cursed because of sin, and in these last days vermin of every kind will multiply. {2MR 178.3}"

New Heavens and New Earth, as I said, or 3rd Heaven (where God dwells) as I said? No.

Sister White and I are not in contradiction, and neither is "Thou shalt not kill." in error or contradiction to scripture, or the SoP/ToJ.

As I said, you have things eternal, and things temporary confused. That confusion remains in your response. You read incorrectly. Please take this time to go back and carefully and prayerfully read what I stated. Do not be so quick to respond to my replies. They are carefully given to you.

I was not the one who desired controversy. I was posting in this thread just fine, until a certain someone interrupted with some assertions, that needed to be put into check. I asked questions.

I hope yet that you may understand what you are doing still and repent.

Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions [Re: Rick H] #194245
07/18/21 03:02 AM
07/18/21 03:02 AM
Green Cochoa  Offline
SDA
Active Member 2021

5500+ Member
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,003
The Orient
Matthew,

Originally Posted by Matthew 10vs8
Can you point to any place where I stated it was a sin to "kill" insects on this present earth?


Speaking of the Ten Commandments, you said:

Originally Posted by Matthew 10vs8
"Kill" is perfectly valid. Why? Becuase God's Ten Commandments are eternal principles, they also exist in Heaven, and as such, even to take the life of one of God's lesser creatures (cat, dog, cow, etc) is to break the commandment, since He was the one who gave them all life.

The commandment is not simply against "murder" (which deals in only, or exclusively, things of mankind, or angel-kind). I could never say, not to "murder" a dog, a cat, a cow, etc. I could only say not to "kill" them.


The logic is simple. You have said yourself that "Thou shalt not kill" includes the killing of animals. You have said also that: "God's Ten Commandments are eternal principles, they also exist in Heaven, and as such, even to take the life of one of God's lesser creatures (cat, dog, cow, etc) is to break the commandment, since He was the one who gave them all life."

That made your point very clear. You attested that killing animals was a sin. If you now deny having said this, you are not being honest with yourself nor with others reading here.

The only way for you to deny that you had said that killing animals was a sin would be for you to now tell us that it is not a sin to break the Ten Commandments--because you made it very clear that it violated those commandments to kill animals. If you believe it is not a sin to break God's Ten Commandments, as the Bible teaches (see 1 John 3:4), you should probably not be posting here.

By the way, I agree that the principles of the Ten Commandments are eternal. That is why the distinction between "ratsach" [FORBIDDEN BY GOD] and other forms like "muwth" [COMMANDED BY GOD, and GOD SAYS HE WILL DO THIS], "nakah" [GOD SAYS HE HAS DONE THIS AND WILL DO IT], "harag" [COMMANDED BY GOD, and GOD SAYS HE WILL DO THIS], "shachat" [COMMANDED BY GOD], "zabach" [COMMANDED BY GOD], etc. is so important.

God does not command that which He has forbidden. That would make of God a liar, having contradicted Himself. But Numbers 23:19 tells us plainly that God does not lie; therefore, when Matthew alleges that God has contradicted Himself, we can know of a surety where the trouble is: Either we believe God, or man.

NOTE: This post was for the benefit of future readers here.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.


We can receive of heaven's light only as we are willing to be emptied of self. We can discern the character of God, and accept Christ by faith, only as we consent to the bringing into captivity of every thought to the obedience of Christ. And to all who do this, the Holy Spirit is given without measure. In Christ "dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in Him." [Colossians 2:9, 10.] {GW 57.1} -- Ellen White.
Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions [Re: Green Cochoa] #194246
07/18/21 04:16 AM
07/18/21 04:16 AM
Matthew 10vs8  Offline
SDA
Active Member 2021

Regular Member
Joined: Jun 2021
Posts: 85
Ili Ili, AS
Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
Matthew,

Originally Posted by Matthew 10vs8
Can you point to any place where I stated it was a sin to "kill" insects on this present earth?


Speaking of the Ten Commandments, you said:

Originally Posted by Matthew 10vs8
"Kill" is perfectly valid. Why? Becuase God's Ten Commandments are eternal principles, they also exist in Heaven, and as such, even to take the life of one of God's lesser creatures (cat, dog, cow, etc) is to break the commandment, since He was the one who gave them all life.

The commandment is not simply against "murder" (which deals in only, or exclusively, things of mankind, or angel-kind). I could never say, not to "murder" a dog, a cat, a cow, etc. I could only say not to "kill" them.


The logic is simple. You have said yourself that "Thou shalt not kill" includes the killing of animals. You have said also that: "God's Ten Commandments are eternal principles, they also exist in Heaven, and as such, even to take the life of one of God's lesser creatures (cat, dog, cow, etc) is to break the commandment, since He was the one who gave them all life."

That made your point very clear. You attested that killing animals was a sin. If you now deny having said this, you are not being honest with yourself nor with others reading here.

The only way for you to deny that you had said that killing animals was a sin would be for you to now tell us that it is not a sin to break the Ten Commandments--because you made it very clear that it violated those commandments to kill animals. If you believe it is not a sin to break God's Ten Commandments, as the Bible teaches (see 1 John 3:4), you should probably not be posting here.

By the way, I agree that the principles of the Ten Commandments are eternal. That is why the distinction between "ratsach" [FORBIDDEN BY GOD] and other forms like "muwth" [COMMANDED BY GOD, and GOD SAYS HE WILL DO THIS], "nakah" [GOD SAYS HE HAS DONE THIS AND WILL DO IT], "harag" [COMMANDED BY GOD, and GOD SAYS HE WILL DO THIS], "shachat" [COMMANDED BY GOD], "zabach" [COMMANDED BY GOD], etc. is so important.

God does not command that which He has forbidden. That would make of God a liar, having contradicted Himself. But Numbers 23:19 tells us plainly that God does not lie; therefore, when Matthew alleges that God has contradicted Himself, we can know of a surety where the trouble is: Either we believe God, or man.

NOTE: This post was for the benefit of future readers here.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.


Green Cochoa,

Read what I said again. Slowly, and in the whole context of my statements. The context was "Heaven". "Ten Commandments are eternal principles, they also exist in Heaven ..."

I am talking about "eternal" things (not temporary existence here on this earth), and as such creatures that exist in Heaven (3rd) (and also as such in further context, the New Heaven and new Earth, not on this present earth), when the rest says, "... and as such, even to take the life of one of God's lesser creatures (cat, dog, cow, etc) is to break the commandment, since He was the one who gave them all life."

Do you think that the angelic beings of heaven are allowed to "kill" God's creatures there?

Do you think that we will be allowed to "kill" God's creatures in the New Heaven and New Earth, where dwelleth righteousness?

I then gave an example of how the commandment is not simply against "murder", in the context of applying to "Heaven" (3rd, and as such also the New Heavens and New Earth, where there is no more death), and the eternal principles as they exist there, not here.

I also showed the difference between "murder" and "kill" by a phrasal example.

"The commandment is not simply against "murder" (which deals in only, or exclusively, things of mankind, or angel-kind). I could never say, not to "murder" a dog, a cat, a cow, etc. I could only say not to "kill" them."

I am not saying by the above, that one cannot, in this present earth "kill" a cow, etc, under certain circumstances. I am only giving an example of the difference in how the word "murder" and "kill" are used.

Did you also see how I included "angel-kind", in addition to man-kind (which is what you were referring to)? That "angel-kind" are beings of "Heaven"? I was attempting to get your attention to a higher sphere in which the commandment against killing applies.

Read the rest of my statements in the same context:

"... Do you think it might affect doctrine in the Ten Commandments, which would affect the doctrines of Heaven (3rd) also, especially in the New Heaven and New Earth (here) to merely address "murder" rather than "kill". Some persons I know of, teach that in the New Heavens and New Earth animal death continues, but not human death (since they are evolutionary minded and start in Genesis that way). ..."

Did you see how I spoke of "animal death" in affecting the "doctrines of Heaven (3rd)", and "New Heavens and New Earth"?

I do hope that you will allow me to explain my own statements in the context in which I wrote them?

Now, to speak even about this present earth. There are certain instances in which even killing creatures (non-human) on this earth is a sin, because it involves the acts of cruelty and characteristics of the devil in so doing. (being as clear as possible: I am not talking about swatting a mosquito or a fly (like vermin or pests, or poisonous and dangerous creatures, etc, or even taking the life of an animal for sustenance for those who do not know any better in regards diet, etc). I am talking about those instances in which cruel persons, simply kill an intelligent creature for their own pleasure, or torture such a creature to death for malevolent 'glee' or cause unwarranted and merciless pain, etc.

An example of this, may be found in Balaam's ass (donkey).

Pro_12:10? A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.

"... Balaam had given evidence of the spirit that controlled him, by his treatment of his beast. "A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel." [443] Proverbs 12:10. Few realize as they should the sinfulness of abusing animals or leaving them to suffer from neglect. He who created man made the lower animals also, and "His tender mercies are over all His works." Psalm 145:9. The animals were created to serve man, but he has no right to cause them pain by harsh treatment or cruel exaction. {PP 442.5}

It is because of man's sin that "the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together." Romans 8:22. Suffering and death were thus entailed, not only upon the human race, but upon the animals. Surely, then, it becomes man to seek to lighten, instead of increasing, the weight of suffering which his transgression has brought upon God's creatures. He who will abuse animals because he has them in his power is both a coward and a tyrant. A disposition to cause pain, whether to our fellow men or to the brute creation, is satanic. Many do not realize that their cruelty will ever be known, because the poor dumb animals cannot reveal it. But could the eyes of these men be opened, as were those of Balaam, they would see an angel of God standing as a witness, to testify against them in the courts above. A record goes up to heaven, and a day is coming when judgment will be pronounced against those who abuse God's creatures. {PP 443.1}

When he beheld the messenger of God, Balaam exclaimed in terror, "I have sinned; for I knew not that thou stoodest in the way against me: now therefore, if it displease thee, I will get me back again." ..."

God said:

Rev_11:18? And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.

Ok, this is my last attempt to get you to read and understand the context of my statement. if after this, you still cannot properly read, well, it is what is, and you may state what you will.

Last edited by Matthew 10vs8; 07/18/21 04:17 AM.
Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions [Re: Green Cochoa] #194247
07/19/21 02:37 PM
07/19/21 02:37 PM
K
kland  Offline
SDA
Active Member 2024

5500+ Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,416
Midland
Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
Have you seen what Mrs. White wrote about Bible versions/perversions? If not, please click HERE to see some of those statements. They are important.
Can you give at least one example of Ellen White talking about Bible versions?
Because you did not in your link.

Page 5 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

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