Adventist Online

The words in the Bible is as God would have them to convey the message He has for us.

Some try to mingle their human smartness with the Word of God by stating that the WORDS are not inspired.  How would you inspire a word anyhow?  A word has no mind. 

They use the following to try and prove their point that the message in the bible is not necessarily as God would have it leaving the words in the Bible open for PRIVATE interpretation.

     It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired. Inspiration acts not on the man's words or his expressions but on the man himself, who, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, is imbued with thoughts. But the words receive the impress of the individual mind. The divine mind is diffused. The divine mind and will is combined with the human mind and will; thus the utterances of the man are the Word of God (MS 24, 1886).  {7BC 945.10}

The following shows that the words written by men were words that God guided them to choose:

“The Bible points to God as its author; yet it was written by human hands; and in the varied style of its different books it presents the characteristics of the several writers. The truths revealed are all "given by inspiration of God" (2 Timothy 3:16); yet they are expressed in the words of men.” (Ellen G. White, ‘The Great Controversy’)

also ...

He guided the mind in the selection of what to speak and what to write. The treasure was entrusted to earthen vessels, yet it is, nonetheless, from Heaven. The testimony is conveyed through the imperfect expression of human language, yet it is the testimony of God; and the obedient, believing child of God beholds in it the glory of a divine power, full of grace and truth.”

God guided their minds to select the words which would convey the testimony.  So please stop mingling your ideas and creeds with the Word of God

"It is the Word of the living God that is to decide all controversies. It is when people mingle their own human smartness with God’s words of truth, in giving sharp thrusts to those who are in controversy with them, that they show that they have not a sacred reverence for God’s Inspired Word. They mix the human with the divine, the common with the sacred, and they belittle God’s Word. . . ." {CTr 331.4}

Views: 505

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Once again, and much more clearly.  So long as you are defending something that is less than the truth I will not lie and call you Defender of THE Truth.  I even rankle at calling you Defender since the only thing I have really seen you defend is your own self-righteousness (drunkenness, remember) and interpretation of the word of God by the Old Covenant.

Also, someone who finds a need to hide behind a pseudonym is not really being truthful.  What are you hiding from?  Why don't you come out honestly and defend your convictions as who you are?  

Lies...

Ellen White, as always correctly provided an account of why Aarons sons died and God returned to Aaron after Moses spoke with him to tell him that he nor his sons are to drink wine nor strong drink lest they die:

9Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations: 10And that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean;

And then in the next verse, he also tells Aaron that he is to also teach these statutes to the people:

11And that ye may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the LORD hath spoken unto them by the hand of Moses.

You are not a Seventh day Adventist for you claim Ellen White is a false prophet by "adding" to the Word of God which is untrue.  There is no point in reading any more of your lengthy discussion for your foundation is error as well.

"Truth is straight, plain, clear, and stands out boldly in its own defense; but it is not so with error. It is so winding and twisting that it needs a multitude of words to explain it in its crooked form."

What lies?  I defied you to provide proof that they were drunk.  There is NONE in the passage you quote as explained before, and Moses conclusion later was not drunkenness but was refusal to eat the goat.

The advice given is not a proof of drunkenness and in the absence of a clear statement in scripture that they were drunk along with the existence of a clear cause other than drunkenness makes you the one who is lying.  Find proof from the Bible or some other source that they were drunk or that God gave her a specific revelation that they were drunk.  Lacking this you and she are guilty of adding to scripture.  I'm waiting.  Nor do I even require a proof from scripture.  If you can find a clear statement from her that even though nothing in scripture states definitively that these priests were drunk or that this supposed drunkenness was the primary cause of their death, as opposed to their refusal to eat the goat of the sin offering as Moses clearly concluded.

You are right.  The truth is straight, plain and clear.  The conclusion of Moses investigation was 

19 Aaron replied to Moses, “Today they sacrificed their sin offering and their burnt offering before the Lord, but such things as this have happened to me. Would the Lord have been pleased if I had eaten the sin offering today? 20 When Moses heard this, he was satisfied.

It does not get anymore straight, plain and clear than that.  Aaron lost his sons that day precisely because neither he nor his sons ate of that offering that day.  It is time for you to stop your twisting and squirming and accept the clear word of scripture, not adding words that simply are not there.  The definitive answer is not drunkenness it is refusal to eat of this offering.

"It does not get anymore straight, plain and clear than that.  Aaron lost his sons that day precisely because neither he nor his sons ate of that offering that day.  It is time for you to stop your twisting and squirming and accept the clear word of scripture, not adding words that simply are not there.  The definitive answer is not drunkenness it is refusal to eat of this offering."

Error.

I'll follow what Ellen White says that agrees with the scriptures.  Thanks for trying to have me follow your error though.

Oh, so now you openly state for all to see that scripture is in error when it does not agree with Ellen White.  You simply prove my point.  You are godless (unless maybe EGW is your god, in which case you are rebellious against that god as well), and what you defend is NOT the truth.  

So far all you have done is dig your hole deeper.  Perhaps you should quit while you are behind.  What you are teaching regarding EGW goes well beyond what the denomination teaches regarding this woman, her calling and her gift, and even that more recent test of faith violates what SHE taught regarding her calling and gift.  So you are defending nothing but the figments of your and Kevin's imaginations, and you both dishonor this woman you claim to venerate so highly.

Kevin, 

Arrogance is setting up your own standard and telling those who refuse to live up to it that they are lost.  Arrogance is setting up your own standard and telling those who do not live up to it that they are Satan's play toy.  Arrogance and ignorance is what you have when someone shows you your error in detail from scripture and your only replay is to call them arrogant.

If knowing the scripture better than you do is arrogance I will proudly plead guilty to it.  If using God's standard instead of the traditions of men is arrogance, and if using scripture to prove that standard is arrogance, I will openly and forthrightly plead guilty to it.  If you are so alarmed by my use of God's word to prove your personal tradition that you set up as an alternative standard by which you judge everyone else lost then you have a serious problem.  The standard which will be used by God is his law.  Since you are so fond of harshly judging others I suggest you start spending a little time actually studying that standard so you can use it instead of your personal traditions.  Only then will you even have a slight chance of judging correctly

"Since you are so fond of harshly judging others I suggest you start spending a little time actually studying that standard so you can use it instead of your personal traditions. Only then will you even have a slight chance of judging correctly"

Myron,

From your posts it is clear that you are arrogant and you do not know scripture better than Kevin.

You say that you have posted where Ellen White is not in agreement with scripture.  I asked you to provide the references and you came back with the spirit we always see you in...

Please, if you have light, show us where she contradicts scripture.  I never saw where you supposedly posted it before.  Make it plain and give a reason for your faith.

If you cannot provide texts, you will place yourself in the same group as these others that speak big words of sarcasm and lies.

I'm waiting for these words of conflict.

Thanks

Defender...Myron gave you on Thursday Oct 17. of this discussion one proof at the link http://www.adventistonline.com/forum/topics/i-think-it-is-fanaticis....  by which he expanded why EGW couldn't see the true reason why Nadab and Abihu died.  It was because she had made temperence an idol and couldn't see anything else in that text beyond that.(Ez 14:1-10)

 

I agree that we need to test everything EGW said as a Church.  And if we are to quote any of her work instead of the Bible, we must do a thorough investigation if those words are in harmony with the Bible first.  Something almost none does in this church.

 

Blessings 

I still fail to see where Ellen White is not in agreement with scripture.  Please the bible quotes and Ellen White quotes one after the other.

Here is what Sister White says about their deaths:

Nadab and Abihu would never have committed that fatal sin had they not first become partially intoxicated by the free use of wine. They understood that the most careful and solemn preparation was necessary before presenting themselves in the sanctuary, where the divine Presence was manifested; but by intemperance they were disqualified for their holy office. Their minds became confused and their moral perceptions dulled so that they could not discern the difference between the sacred and the common. 

"As priests of God, they had been commanded to offer always the fire of God's own kindling, which was kept burning before God day and night. This law was ever to be observed. But Nadab and Abihu had used wine too freely. Their minds were not keen, but confused; and they were unable to distinguish between the sacred and common. "And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not. And there went out fire from the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before the Lord." {ST, October 6, 1898 par. 12}

Leviticus 10

1And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not. 2And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.

Numbers 3

1These also are the generations of Aaron and Moses in the day that the LORD spake with Moses in mount Sinai. 2And these are the names of the sons of Aaron; Nadab the firstborn, and Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar. 3These are the names of the sons of Aaron, the priests which were anointed, whom he consecrated to minister in the priest's office. 4And Nadab and Abihu died before the LORD, when they offered strange fire before the LORD, in the wilderness of Sinai, and they had no children: and Eleazar and Ithamar ministered in the priest's office in the sight of Aaron their father.

So tell me.... where is the problem?

Here is the problem, and I have already given you this information as well. 

14 Some of the elders of Israel came to me and sat down in front of me. Then the word of the Lord came to me: “Son of man, these men have set up idols in their hearts and put wicked stumbling blocks before their faces. Should I let them inquire of me at all? Therefore speak to them and tell them, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: When any of the Israelites set up idols in their hearts and put a wicked stumbling block before their faces and then go to a prophet, I the Lord will answer them myself in keeping with their great idolatry. I will do this to recapture the hearts of the people of Israel, who have all deserted me for their idols.’

“Therefore say to the people of Israel, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Repent! Turn from your idols and renounce all your detestable practices!

“‘When any of the Israelites or any foreigner residing in Israel separate themselves from me and set up idols in their hearts and put a wicked stumbling block before their faces and then go to a prophet to inquire of me, I the Lord will answer them myself. I will set my face against them and make them an example and a byword. I will remove them from my people. Then you will know that I am the Lord.

“‘And if the prophet is enticed to utter a prophecy, I the Lord have enticed that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand against him and destroy him from among my people Israel. 10 They will bear their guilt—the prophet will be as guilty as the one who consults him. 11 Then the people of Israel will no longer stray from me, nor will they defile themselves anymore with all their sins. They will be my people, and I will be their God, declares the Sovereign Lord.’”  Ezekiel 14.

You have set an idol in your heart, a stumbling block before your face.  That idol says Ellen White is the infallible word of God and nothing she says is to ever be questioned.  When someone shows you that God requires something quite different in the Law of the False Prophet (Deuteronomy 13) you absolutely refuse to accept it or that scripture even says what is said there. 

The Lord says renounce all your detestable practices.  Anything that is not in accordance with scripture is detestable.  That you refuse to test this, or any other prophet, against scripture, and most specifically against Moses is detestable and is a practice that must be renounced.  The next verse tells us what God will do if you do not renounce this practice, and we see this from you in the vast majority of your posts.  There is a huge object lesson in that for everyone else. 

By refusing to abide by God's law in any way including this refusal to obey the law of the false prophet and test all prophets who profess to be giving you the word of the Lord you have set up an idol in your heart and a stumbling block before your face and you have separated yourself from God.  For that reason God will speak to you through the very idol you have set up and he will answer you himself, but as he said earlier, this answer will be such that the idol will make you hear only what you want to hear.  The result of this word is an even further separation from God than what already existed.  Bad news for you. 

From my perspective verse 9 and 10 get rather strange.  The result of these idols and stumbling blocks is such that no matter what anyone says the idol twists the meaning to be precisely what it wants that meaning to be.  I have had people whose thinking is polar opposite from mine tell me that we are in full agreement, and people who are in substantial agreement with me claim that we are miles apart in our thinking.  If we allow these idols (preconceived ideas that we are seeking to "prove" to rule our thinking we will see only what we want to see, hear only what we want to hear, even if it means a 180 degree reversal of the proper meaning of something.  You see this in religion and "science" all the time.

Yet according to verses 9 and 10, when a prophet speaks on a subject God enticed them to speak even when they should have known how the person inquiring of them was going to misuse their words.  This is fine when you ask me a question which I know I should not even be answering because I already know you will refuse to see the answer as you already have over and over.  And it is a refusal to see, not that the problem cannot be seen.  At this very moment I am violating this law by answering you and God makes me responsible for your sin of misinterpretation.  I cannot get anymore plain than that.  Furthermore, it is God who has led me to give you this answer even though I know you will refuse to hear what God is saying through me (or anyone else your idol disagrees with). 

But this same law applies to Ezekiel and Moses and Ellen White, and any other prophet who has ever written on any subject, even though all these people are long dead or will never even meet the majority of the people who read their work, much less know whether they do so through the influence of the idols of their hearts or if they have cast down those idols and are eligible to receive the word of the Lord.  Those long dead prophets are guilty of your sin of misusing their words to uphold the idols of your heart. This is a real harsh judgment God places on people who have been dead for centuries.  I cannot be sure why he does this, except to warn them to be careful of what they say and to make certain their own idols of the heart do not lead them to say something more than, "Thus saith the Lord." 

Ellen White regularly felt a need to explain her understanding of the word of the Lord to those who she taught.  I will not condemn her for this.  1 Corinthians 12:27 gives a hierarchy of the offices of the church.  Apostle is the highest, prophet is the second highest and teacher is the third.  My calling is as a teacher, thus I explain the things of God to the best of my ability.  In all cases those with higher callings must teach those with lower callings, thus the Apostles (sent ones or ambassadors) and prophets (messengers) must teach others.  Out of necessity a teacher goes beyond, "Thus saith the Lord."  But this necessity also means the teachers opinions (idols of the heart) also come into play where they exist..  The teacher must always attempt to be fully aware of these idols and to cast them down at every opportunity. 

We all have these idols.  None of us yet has the full mind of God on any matter.  All of us have more to learn.  The idols are there in all of us, but we can cast them down.  A true teacher of God is always checking to make certain his idols are not coming between himself and God, separating him from God and twisting the word of God. 

You and Ellen White are constantly telling others to accept the simplest, most straight forward meaning of the word of God.  Yet when God says he will harden Pharaoh's heart and then says over and over that he hardened Pharaoh's heart, you allow your idol of the heart to explain how God really does not meant this at all the 10 or 11 times he says it, then point to the four times he says Pharaoh hardened Pharaoh's heart, then say, "See, God only ALLOWED Pharaoh to harden his own heart.  This also demonstrates a phenomenal ignorance on the part of both of you regarding God's liability laws.  These laws state beyond any shadow of a doubt that anyone who simply allows something to happen when they had the power to prevent that thing from happening is responsible as if they had actually done it themselves and is responsible for the souls of those who were lost by that negligence (see Exodus 21 to 23 and Ezekiel 3 and 33.)

Or perhaps we should look at the case of Judges 14:4 in which Stephen Bohr and I got into a very long discussion over his foolishness for contradicting the next verse after the one he was teaching falsely.  I have been considering posting the entire exchange in my blog section ever since Jason posted his foolishness of Bohr's apparent violation of God's laws of judgment in calling Dwight Nelson into question over an issue they disagree on.  There is no evidence given in that sermon that Bohr went to Nelson privately to seek a conciliation between them in the matter before going to the church with it.  Nor does it matter that Bohr did not actually name Nelson since he gave adequate identifying information that his little minion was able to name Nelson in his original post. 

My exchange with Bohr was caused because he spent the previous five minutes or more of his sermon berating and excoriating pastors who teach what they want from one verse of the Bible while ignoring the following verse which immediately proves that pastor is teaching falsehood.  Bohr then did exactly that, using Ellen White as his proof that he was right.  Both he and Ellen White call Sampson's marriage to the Timnite woman a sin (based on the same misunderstanding and narrow and incomplete interpretation of the law of God that caused Miriam and Aaron to question Moses leadership based on his marriage to a Cushite.  Verse 4 says, "(His parents did not know that this was from the Lord, who was seeking an occasion to confront the Philistines; for at that time they were ruling over Israel.)"  Oops.  If Samson is doing what God told him to do it is not a sin. 

After I brought this next verse to his attention (while following God's laws of judgment and judging him just as harshly as he had spent 5 to 10 minutes judging other pastors who refused to read the next verse and including that meaning in their interpretation, he continued to use Ellen White to prove that the verse did not mean Samson was doing what God wanted him to do and that Samson was sinning by this marriage.  Furthermore, he told me God did not need a cause against the Philistines because their holding Israel captive was cause enough.  The ignorance of God's laws demonstrated by this statement would be bad enough, but this is a direct contradiction of the simple statement of God made in this verse.  I guess we need Stephen Bohr and Ellen White to correct scripture.  How many more examples do you need?

The fact of the matter is that I know no matter how much more I say, no matter how effective the proof I give you, you will still not see how there is any discrepancy because you refuse to see any discrepancy.  But any such discrepancies are not the problem here.  Whether they exist or not is not the problem here.  The problem is that you refuse to compare anything this woman wrote to scripture and to subject her to this test.  The problem here is that you claim she is infallible and does not need to be subjected to this test. 

Even if every word this woman wrote was, "Thus saith the Lord," with not a bit of personal commentary (which isn't the case), even if she did nothing but write the contents of her dreams and visions, in order to follow God's law and keep your idol from separating you from God and his people who follow his law you would have to subject every word she wrote to this scrutiny.  If you do not you violate God's law and you separate yourself from God and his people. 

I will not say you use Ellen White to refute scripture as Stephen Bohr did in the exchanges I referenced, and as I have seen all too many people on this forum do.  I strongly suspect you have done so, and more than once, but I have not personally seen it that I can recall.  You get the benefit of the doubt here.  However, I have seen this behavior way too often among Adventists from my earliest Sabbath School days and through my SDA education.  This is something she consistently and strongly cautioned against, but it is something evangelists as prominent as Stephen Bohr regularly do.  It makes this denomination a laughing stock and byword among the rest of Christianity.  The words of Ezekiel 14 are strongly proven in this denomination on this point among others.  Your own idols of the heart blind you to this and I seriously doubt you have learned anything from this post if you have even read this far.  That is my sin according to Ezekiel 14, but if even one other person tears down their idols of the heart and never abuses her work again it is all worth the risk.

Hopefully you read my post above and have a little better understanding of the problem of idols of the heart.  There is another problem too that I will now address in your study of this issue and comparison of what Ellen White says and of what scripture says.  That you cannot see a problem there shows foolishness and blindness to a very high degree.  I won't even fault you for refusing to understand the symbolism in the story even though it is some of the simplest symbols in scripture.  God's fire is his law.  There is nothing simpler.  The study to see that his fire/law is his character is more complex, but there are multiple direct correlations between his word/law being fire.  SDAs only miss this symbol because they choose to.

The direct cause of the deaths of Nadab and Abihu, as you proved was their bringing strange fire into the Tabernacle.  The fire of God came down from heaven the previous day at the dedication of the priests and the Tabernacle.  That very night the priests allowed the fire of God to burn out.  They could not keep it properly fueled for one day.  The next morning Nadab and Abihu came into the temple with strange fire to offer the Lord, thus fire from the Shekiah presence of God flashed out of the Most Holy Place and consumed them. 

Moses then began his investigation as to why God killed them.  He mentioned a possibility, but that possibility in no way figures in to his conclusion which is given in verses 16 to 20.  This was all about the mishandling of the goat of the sin offering.  As I have said, I explained in some detail the meaning of this offering in other places I will not go there now, but as priests of God (the priesthood of believers or as the body of the high priest) we are to share in this bearing of the sins of the congregation.  By refusing to take up our cross and bear these sins of others we commit the same sin and Jesus says we are not worthy of him if we refuse.  That is a different lesson.

The two passages you quoted focus on the strange fire as the biblical cause of dead.  The passage I focus on, Leviticus 10:16 - 20 focuses on the specific law (fire) that was violated which caused their deaths.  Then you highlight the following from Ellen White:  Nadab and Abihu would never have committed that fatal sin had they not first become partially intoxicated by the free use of wine.  Tell me where in scripture that information is found?  Adding to scripture is a sin.  I DEFYyou to find anywhere in scripture that it says Nabab and Abihu drank any wine at all, or that they were drunk when they went into the temple that morning.  That information is definitely not given anywhere in this chapter, and most especially not in Moses conclusions.  While it is most definitely possible to infer it from Moses statement in verse 9 there is no proof that his investigation actually found drunkenness to be involved.  You will not find any other scriptures that give this information either.  Adding to scripture is a sin.  Making inferences from scripture is not a sin provided you do not state those inferences as fact.  Ellen White states them as fact with no additional proof given that God made a clear revelation specifically to her on this matter.

This is no light matter either.  The laws concerning the drink offerings are quite specific and the priest was never to consume this offering.  The wine is called the blood of the grape.  In the ordinary services the wine was to be handled precisely as the blood of the animal sacrifices was -- it was to be poured out on the side of the altar of burnt offering.  The blood is never to be drunk because the nephesh (soul, not life which is chai) is in the blood.  This is why Revelation 6:5 depicts the souls of the martyrs as being under the altar.  Whether they were living sacrifices who gave their life in service to God and others or whether they were those physically killed for their witness their blood was poured out at the side of the altar.  Because of this symbolism drinking the wine would have been exactly the same sin as drinking the blood of the sacrifice and you can bet Moses would have included that information in this story, especially since their refusal to eat of the flesh of the sacrifice (bear the sins of the supplicant) was so important. 

So, the problems (not problem) here are huge.  Neither you nor Ellen White has an inkling of the symbolism in this story.  Both entirely ignore the exact cause of death, the refusal to eat the flesh of the goat, and much more importantly what that refusal meant.  Ezra even went so far as to prove himself unworthy of Jesus and being called a Christian in his response to me on this.  Ellen White was so focused on physical drunkenness that she entirely missed the much greater problem of spiritual drunkenness which is self-righteousness, a sin which you have been demonstrating in spades in this and other threads, and which even your screen name emphasizes.  All of these problems are enormous.

Because you claim to defend the truth you claim to be spiritually sighted.  Spiritual sight is not an easy thing to learn, and claiming it when you are still blind is a very serious sin.  For this reason I will call your attention to the story of the healing of the man blind from birth in John 9.  At the end of that book the teachers of the law say to Jesus, "What?  Are we blind too?"  This was in response to Jesus statement, “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.” The meaning of this is that Jesus has come to us to heal our spiritual blindness, but be fore we can be healed we must first admit that we are blind.  Not many who claim spiritual sight are able to do this, yet we all remain blind, at least in part.  To the question of these Pharisees Jesus replied, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains." 

You have made the first step in repentance by saying you can't see this and asking what the problem is.  Now the question for you is, are you willing to see what the problem is?  If you are God will now begin the long process of leading you into all truth.  It doesn't happen over night and it takes a tremendous amount of work, but it will give you something real to defend.  If you are not willing to see these things, God will continue speaking such that your idols have no problem twisting his words into whatever you want them to be and  you will continue to worship a god of your own manufacture.  This is something every one of us does anyway, but some of us are willing to allow God to reveal himself to us little by little, thus also revealing an idol we are worshiping.  We will then cast down that idol and come closer to truly worshiping the God of heaven instead of a god of our own manufacture.

Just leave him alone Defender. The kind of arrogance that places one's thinking above everyone else including Mrs. White cannot be reached. He quotes her when it suits him and insults her where he disagrees, just like he insults us. He is on his own little island away from the church. It must be very lonely there.

RSS

Site Sponsors

 

Adventist Single?
Meet other Single
Adventists here:
Join Free


USA members:

Support AO by
using this link:
Amazon.com

 

© 2022   Created by Clark P.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service