Actually, I was referring to the first couple of chapters.

"Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them." [Job 1:6} I suspect the "sons of God" named here are the same as the ones named in chapter 38. What do you think? Do you think there is a connection to the 24 elders named in the Revelation?

Good point. I agree. However, do you agree that the three places in Job where the title "sons of God" appears refers exclusively to holy angels?

Yes, she grew in her understanding of truth and changed her mind when she discovered she was in error. However, the question is - Did she ever write "I saw", or "I was shown", or "Said the angel", etc, followed by insights and information that was incorrect or contradicted the Bible? In other words, while under inspiration did she ever convey an untruth?

PS - I hate to say it, but I'm not convinced she botched her description of events related to Jesus' Ascension on Sunday and again 40 days later.

Actually no, since the term is inclusive of any created being faithful to God. I therefore see it as a reference to representative created humans (i.e., in the same form as us. Vs angels) from other unfallen worlds. I also do not see why “angels” already living with God in would need to ‘come and “present” themselves before God.’ That rather seems applicable to beings/humans living outside of God’s Heavenly Realm, per se.

I would surfacely (i.e., without having analysed each of these revelations) agree that this was indeed the case with such “directly revealed” statements, however, as seen with a woman she “saw” would be part of the 144,000 (which did not transpire as such), even those revelation were
also conditional, as is Bible prophecy.


[“Time of Trouble” occurs after the sealing and work of the 144,000]

So the issue of “God and the Future” (i.e., as I Biblically understand it: “the future is not known, thus not set in stone) also applied here.


How about, so that your stance can be objectively/transparently verified, giving the substantive proof of your belief here in the light of my previously listed (substantive) objections i.e., approval of sacrifice, wavesheaf timely typology, resurrected saints on earth for 40 days??, and the others.

Please post a quote where she said "I was shown" or "I saw", etc, as it relates to this idea you have here.

Evidently I read this SOP statement incorrectly. Mrs Hasting’s was shown to be standing with the 144,000 apparently at the final resurrection and not prior to that to participate in the work that these will do.

Although I see no requirement that they be the same, I also see no requirement that in Job 38 it means angels. Specifically, it says "and" the sons of God which could be a redundant thought or it could be separate ones.

As NJK stated, they are coming to present themselves. The question must be asked why, and why only 24 of many angels, what was this meeting for, why did satan think that was an appropriate time to come. It would be my thought that they are somehow held accountable for those under them. Which could be angels if they have such a hierarchy but could also be those who are leaders over the worlds. One way you could read it is that God sees satan and says, who invited you here. He responds that he was the leader of the earth and therefore has a right to their meeting. Which God then asks about Job who does not follow satan's leading. Which satan then admits he does not have full control over the earth, but that God is unduly protecting Job.

The 24 elders of revelation appear to have some honor or responsibility different from others. No reason to not consider they could be connected with those of Job.

Sorry, MM, I did not realize that you were unfamiliar with EGW. From other posts by you I assumed that you were well read in this area. My bad.

These controversies (and others) regarding EGW are well known to any Adventist that does any amount of studying and/or thinking. I would prefer if you did not use amaturish delaying/redirecting tactics, but rather address the issue with your own ideas and opinions.