Adventist Online

Question: If God came to you today and said, just follow Me (i.e. God) how many would do as requested, or would you just disobey him and continue to follow Ellen G White?

This is a bother to me, because I feel many of our members hold Mrs. White to a higher standard than they hold God and this is not pleasing to Him.

Come on people. Let's get it right.

Views: 3639

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Leon 

Newer do you come with an answer to a question just deflecting and shifting your straw man somewhere else  

It is not a question of what food we could eat but rather what food we should eat. Meat was the last thing to be added to the human diet, it was also only possible to eat as a result of sin.

There is no necessity to eat meat, it is done as a result of appetite and requires killing God's creation. God has provided much better food.

The question presupposes that following God and following Ellen White are mutually exclusive. I can't accept that premise.

However holding Ellen White above God is akin to making her a goddess - I have not seen anyone do that although some may make it seem as if they do.

You are right that we should not hold EGW above God but it is not right that the alternative is to abandon her writings totally. The purpose of her writings is to point us to the Bible. If we were walking with God we would need neither EGW nor the Bible.

JohnB

You may not be doing it, but many people are. The Church has published the clear word which changes the bible to confirm its doctrine advocated by the ministry of Ellen White. The purpose of her writings are not to point to the bible but to uphold SDA doctrine. She as a person was admonished several times by the church for not upholding their positions (1888,) and the ministry to southern blacks. Yet, her published work which was the work of many collaborators serves a the guideline for  understanding scripture.

Leon

Leon,
Quantify "many"? What's your source for that?
The Clear Word is a paraphrase (like the Good News) and was not produced as a Bible version. It was a series of devotionals written by Jack Blanc for personal use with his family. He was lobbied by church members to publish it as it was appreciated by so many members. He stated that it is not a Bible version and was never intended to be.
I doubt that you know what EGW purposed when she wrote. That EGW did not write to confirm church doctrine should be very obvious when one takes into account that, as you mention, she did not follow the church leaders in 1888. Indeed they removed from the USA for that reason.
By stating that she had "many collaborators" I can only assume you are referring to her secretaries. Not unheard of even today.
You really should give an honest account in your responses.

JohnB

It is called "the clear word", and the paraphrases support Adventist doctrine. This is a clear attempt to rewrite scripture. Jack Blanc didn't keep the bible for personal use, he allowed it to be published and distributed by and Adventist Publishing house. When I say collaborators. Ellen White used source material from other authors, had her work edited and reworked. You are correct that this is common publishing practice, but hardly the path of revelation. People have been led to believe that her work is novel to her, and each word was the direct product of vision or guidance from God.

Leon

The same old story from the critics which has been answered too many times.

Insufficiently I may add.

Herbert,

Re: Jack Blanco's "The Clear Word". It is "An expanded paraphrase of the Bible to nurture faith and growth". In the Preface it states that it "is not a new translation... not intended for in-depth study or for public reading in churches."

What it is is a blending of SoP and scriptures to produce a book which is lovely to use for devtionals. It's been around for over 20 years and is printed and distributed by Review and Herald Publishing Association. Blanco published it privately. Of course it support's Adventist doctrine, it was written and published by an Adventist, the Bible supports Adventist doctrine - that's where Adventists get their doctrine from.

Regarding Ellen White's use of sources I suggest reading William Fagel's article here.

However, you state that, "People have been led to believe that her work is novel to her, and each word was the direct product of vision or guidance from God."

The 1881 GC session established that was not so. A committee was also set up to grammatically edit her work. In 1883 GC session that point was reaffirmed when it stated that as a Church:

"We believe the light given by God to His servants is by the enlightenment of the mind, thus imparting the thoughts, and not (except in rare cases) the very words in which the ideas should be expressed."

Again I refer you to Fagel's article as it is quite succinct and comprehensive.

John

The "Clear word," was written to support Adventist Doctrine, this is the truth. The stated purpose is a smoke screen.

My issue with the works of Ellen White (which I may add are not the biblical SOP.) Are poorly explained by the apologetic William Fagel. Which of the other prophets produced collaborative work from a publishing house? Ellen White gleaned her ideas from others and then indicated that they came from Divine revelation. I want to be clear, God has given Divine revelation to Prophets visions which have been confirmed by history. Ellen White has no record of confirmed visions. Most of her predictions were vague, or blatantly false. Most of her health related advice was gleaned from other authors, some valid and some blatantly false. One must read her with a critical eye, taking the good and ignoring the false. It is impossible for many SDA's to do this because they are blatantly told both by word and action that her testimony is the final word. 

JohnB. you can quote the policy indicated by the historical church, but those words are not the holy words of scripture. I am not saying that Ellen White didn't speak some truths which should be held up. However, she was a sinful human being who needs no such honor. Christ and Him alone should be our focus.

Leon

Herbert said, ""The "Clear word," was written to support Adventist Doctrine, this is the truth. The stated purpose is a smoke screen."

Ok, on what basis are you calling Blanco and others liars? Actually, don't bother you obviously have nothing to back it.

Herbert you are now sounding like a typical conspiracy theorist.

The rest, typically, continues to be just your opinion

"Which of the other prophets produced collaborative work from a publishing house?"

I pause for this question as it is one of the stupidest questions I have seen. Of course, none of the other prophets travelled on steam trains either. I wonder why? I suppose that must be a major question for you, why didn't the Jewish publishing houses pick up any of the Old Testament prophets?

Herbert said, "you can quote the policy indicated by the historical church, but those words are not the holy words of scripture."

Let me get this straight. You say that, "People have been led to believe that her work is novel to her, and each word was the direct product of vision or guidance from God."

I respond by showing that the SDA Church says exactly the opposite and you reply, "those words are not the holy words of scripture." !!!

So you want a quote from the Bible saying that the SDA Church does not believe that ?

What on earth are you talking about?

You say people have been led to believe that each word came from God I show that from 1881 the SDA Church has said the opposite and you complain that it is not scripture.

Herbert, you obviously have nothing but your own prejudices. That's ok, you are entitled to your own opinion.

At least two people have asked you to clearly state where EGW contradicts scripture and over a period of days you haven't been able to produce anything more than rambling opinions with zero evidence. 

You complain that Ian accuses you of being a catholic and despite your protestations and despite his lack of credible evidence he continues to make the claim against you.

That is exactly the way that you are in regard to EGW.

I place zero credibility on his claims regarding you and likewise I place zero credibility on your claims regarding Ellen White. You have nothing at all apart from your own rewriting of history, your rewriting of the beliefs of SDAs and rambling conspiracy theories.

So, please, why bother saying these things when we now all know that you have nothing to back your argument other than your own prejudices.

Presumably you also reject the Gospel of Luke on the same basis as you reject EGW? (See Luke 1:1-4, Luke copied what others told him and added their accounts into his gospel.)

Leon

I guess the Oldest Bible translation you can find will be the Latin Vulgate so you better stick with that. 

As John points out the Clear word is not a Bible translation and many Adventists have condemned it roundly for the way it has interwoven the SDA doctrines in there. 

RSS

Site Sponsors

 

Adventist Single?
Meet other Single
Adventists here:
Join Free


USA members:

Support AO by
using this link:
Amazon.com

 

© 2019   Created by Clark P.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service