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

Myron must no longer be SDA for how can one remain SDA and not see that Ellen White's comments are 100% in line with scripture.

Thanks for the advice Kevin.  I won't be responding to his bullying tactics to submit to him in any way.  Why give in to error?



The lengths you go to in an effort to prove your personal opinions, no matter how untenable is amazing, but before I go on to point out your errors in this effort to avoid the clear word of scripture I must admit my own blindness.  

For whatever reason, until you pointed it out here I had never seen that it was God, not Moses who spoke those words concerning drunkenness.  Although God requires a double witness of all things, even his own word, I am now much more willing to consider without such an explicit statement in scripture that these two MEN were drunk.  It was very rare for God to speak directly to any of the priests, even Aaron, who proved on many occasions to be a rather weak man, easily influenced by others.  The only other occasion I am aware of off the top of my head where God spoke directly to Aaron is one of those instances where he allowed others to influence him into sin.  That is found in Numbers 12 where God makes a clear distinction between prophets and how he speaks to them, and Moses and how he spoke to Moses.  On most occasions the priests had to rely on various systems of casting lots to determine God's plan, primarily questioning the umin and thumim for yes or no answers from God.  

When God finds a matter so urgent that he breaks his normal pattern of communication I will listen and give special credence to that word.  Still, God did not state that they were drunk, and this lack raises a certain level of doubt.  God quite intentionally speaks to us in cryptic ways to see if we are going to jump to conclusions and do our own thing or if we are going to turn to him seeking further information and clarification of his word.  For that reason I will still reject the word of anyone who explicitly states these MEN were drunk without having proof beyond this text.  To my knowledge such proof does not exist, and I have seen nothing in Ellen Whites writings to suggest she was given explicit revelation of this in one of her visions.

Beyond this there is still the matter of Moses investigation which clearly came to another conclusion which you work unduly hard to disprove.  You come to a patently incorrect conclusion when you determine verse 19 to be regarding Aaron's surviving sons, and not about the deaths of Nadab and Abihu.  

19 And Aaron said unto Moses, Behold, this day have they offered their sin offering and their burnt offering before the LORD; and such things have befallen me: and if I had eaten the sin offering to day, should it have been accepted in the sight of the LORD?

"And such things" is a direct reference to the death of his sons and Moses explicit command that he is not to mourn them.  He asks that had he personally eaten of the sin offering if all of this could have been avoided and Moses is finally satisfied that he understands the gravity of the situation.  Considering this how can you possibly look for another cause of death?  Moses simply did not contradict God in these situations, and this was Moses conclusion concerning the cause of their deaths.  Let's not forget what God later told Miriam and Aaron after their rebellion against Moses.  

he said, “Listen to my words:

“When there is a prophet among you,
    I, the Lord, reveal myself to them in visions,
    I speak to them in dreams.
But this is not true of my servant Moses;
    he is faithful in all my house.
With him I speak face to face,
    clearly and not in riddles;
    he sees the form of the Lord.
Why then were you not afraid
    to speak against my servant Moses?”

The anger of the Lord burned against them, and he left them.

Moses and God shared the same language, the same understanding of the words and the symbols.  There were no dark sayings, riddles or unclarity of any kind.  Moses would not have arrived at a conclusion separate from God's in this matter.  Now, as I have pointed out in the past, both Moses and God would also have understood the New Covenant antitype of drunkenness to apply, and would have known that this is most often the reason that clergy refuse to bear the sins of the community.  As I pointed out and you so blatantly ignored in the four winds thread, you cannot separate the Old Covenant and New Covenant definitions of words and symbols.  Wind is breath is spirit.  Breath is intellect is spirit.  The difference is the word used to describe them and the two common definitions also link the two words together, although I believe YOU link them in invalid ways for your own convenience.

Moses told Aaron and his sons the New Covenant definition of eating the flesh of the sin offering, which is bearing the sins of the congregation.  Moses and God would also have had the New Covenant definition of drunkenness in mind, and that is self-righteousness.  Such self-righteousness makes a priest unclean and unfit to enter the presence of God.  It is for this reason that the high priest was required to bathe and make a sin offering for himself on the Day of Atonement before ministering for the people on that day.  The priest is required to examine himself daily, recognize that he is a sinner just like those he serves, no better and sometimes worse, and must make atonement for himself and his own sins before he can atone for the sins of others.  All five of the priests had refused to do that on this day.  Two of them paid the price for a sin in which they all shared; yet had Aaron eaten of the sin offering that day as high priest he would have provided covering for the sins of his sons.  

It is really of no great concern whether they were physically drunk that day or not.  I have said all this before.  They entered the presence of God without making atonement for their own sins and refusing to make atonement for the sins of the congregation.  As a result they were spiritually drunk and this drunkenness is much more important, but is something all SDAs, Ellen White included but less so than most, have consistently refused to address.  Ellen White allowed her temperance idol to blind her to this greater truth, but she did address the sins of those around her when God instructed.  What is less clear is whether she first examined herself and atoned for her own sins and if she made proper attempts to bear the sins of those she counseled.  I have no doubt of her sincerity, but her lack of understanding of this issue calls into question whether she really did what God required of her in these matters.  This is the problem with idols of the heart that prevent us from seeing the deeper truths.

Now, there are two other important matters, the matter of the heave offering and what it really is, and the matter of why you insist on calling these MEN boys.  Both show a considerable lack of understanding and carelessness in study on your part.

You have yet to see my response to your last post to me in the four winds thread because I have not completed it and posted it.  In that response I chastise you for your tunnel vision.  You are blind to a great many things because you focus so tightly on individual words and their definitions but never look at the big picture.  When you do pull out a short distance in an effort to establish context you still get many things wrong because you have never really focused on the parts of the picture around the one you study so closely, and you have no real concept of the entire picture as a complete system.  Studying a single pixel is useless if you do not develop these other skills.

Aaron's sons, Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar were not boys.  Along with Aaron all five men had been consecrated as priests the previous day along with the consecration of the Tabernacle.  You forget how old Aaron was at this time.  Aaron was three years older than Moses, meaning he was 83 at the beginning of the Exodus ordeal.  According to the book of Jasher it was two year between the first visit to Pharaoh and the Exodus.  At this point they had been encamped at Sinai for roughly a year and a half.  Aaron was probably 86 years old at this time.  He was no spring chicken and his sons were not mere boys.  This was not a matter of poor parenting, at least, not as we define it today.  

The law requires that a priest be 30 years old before he can enter the service of the temple.  It also requires that he retire from day to day service at age 50.  Not a one of these men was a day under 30 or he could not have been consecrated as a priest.  

In Israel (and the rest of the middle east) if he had been properly educated a man was eligible for adoption as a fully mature son of his father when he was 30 years old.  Of course he had to prove himself worthy of this honor because it meant he became a full partner in his father's business and was given his father's signet and thus able to conduct any business he desired in his father's name and with his father's funds.  The Levites, including the priests, were set aside to redeem the first born sons of Israel in Numbers 5.  In this they were the first fruits offering of all of Israel, and God said Israel was his first born son of all the nations of the earth.  The priests were the first of the first and were God's inheritance and he was theirs.  Their consecration was their adoption as fully mature sons of God.  These were not mere boys to be poorly parented by poor, misguided Aaron.  Do not diminish them or their function by using this diminutive word for them.  They were men, fully mature sons of God and were to be treated as such by God and man.

It is clear that you have absolutely no concept as to the differences between the primary offerings the priests had to deal with, much less the other offerings that must be made on special occasions.  Verses 11 to 15 are in no way making reference to the burnt offering.  This offering was made twice daily and NO portion of it was to be eaten by the priests.  The entire offering was to be immolated on the altar.  

The primary offerings are listed and their rituals detailed in Leviticus 1 through 7.  When you pull out your concordance or put key words into the search engine on Bible Gateway or other software you will find that heave shoulder and wave breast (Leviticus 10:14, 15) make reference to only one offering, the fellowship offering or alternately translated as the peace or freewill offering (Leviticus 7:34).  Considering how detail oriented you present yourself as being, how can you make such a serious error?  No portion of the daily burnt offering was given to the priests.  This offering belonged exclusively to God and must be entirely burned on the altar.   The priests were given portions of every offering brought to the temple by an Israelite, but this offering, which was never brought by an individual, belonged to God alone.

Such careless study and teaching is parallel to the problem that plagued Cain.  Contrary to SDA teaching Cain's offering was not rejected because it was not a blood offering.  Key words in this story show this offering to have been a first fruits offering.  Abel brought the best of the first fruits of his flocks, animals that could be used for no other purpose, not even daily burnt offerings or sin offerings.  So Cain was to bring the best of the first fruits of his fields, but he only brought some of the fruits of his field.  Presumably this means he retained the best for his personal use, and/or brought the offering at his convenience, not before harvesting the rest of his fields as the law required.  

I have a more complete teaching posted on my blog dealing with this matter.  I believe I have called this to your attention before and that you have read this, but I do not recall for certain.  You can read this article here:  Cain had not sinned by his carelessness as so many SDAs teach.  God simply told him that sin was crouching at his door and wanted him.  Eventually his refusal to correct his careless attitude did lead to him sinning by killing his brother.  For these same reasons I will not tell you that you are sinning by this carelessness with the word of God, but I will tell you that sin is crouching at your door and wants to have you.  There are several on this forum who have already crossed the line into sin in this regard.  Don't join them.

You are too focused on the minutia and when you do come up for air, so to speak, you do not come out of the water (speculation) and get a good footing on the solid ground of truth.  There is nothing wrong with speculation.  God's law very definitely allows for it but with specific safe guards to keep us from floundering or drifting with the currents.  We have discussed this before and you seemed to have some small understanding of how the food (study) laws of Leviticus 11 and other chapters apply to this.  Furthermore, it still very much appears that when the clear and explicit word of scripture states something you do not like you are too quick to speculate on alternate meanings rather than accept the truth or seek further specific guidance from God by cross referencing with other stories or laws, or seeking new revelation.  What was it Paul said about useless speculations and arguments?  Some matters, such as whether Adam had a belly button simply serve to focus our attention away from the important matters and explicit statements of truth in God's word.

Finally there is the matter of your misuse of the English language.  If you cannot get things right in the language you use daily to communicate with everyone how do you expect us to believe you really know what you are talking about when you start speaking about the meanings of Greek and Hebrew words?  How do we know you are not just as careless with them as you are about which sacrifice is which, or the definition of the English words you use?

You and I disagree that scripture does not implicitly state Nadab and Abihu were drunk.  I regularly concede this point even before you pointed out that it was God who made this statement and not Moses.  The very fact that this law was mentioned implies the possibility that they were considered to have been drunk.  The very fact that the investigation continued after looking into this possibility implies that either they were found not to have been drunk, or their drunkenness was found not to have been the immediate cause of their deaths.  So scripture implicitly states the possibility of their being drunk.  Anyone would be a fool not to admit this, and I have skirted that line a bit too closely at times, but you will find most of my writings on the subject to at least make a nod in this direction.

What scripture does not do is explicitly state that they were drunk.  This is the meaning you seem to want to convey in your statement about this and was the cause of insistence with those who claim it is a proven fact that they were drunk, but it is certainly not what you said.  This is a common enough mistake and normally I don't make a big issue of it, but a person who passes himself off as being as precise with the definition of words as what you do is to be held to a higher standard.  

About 12 and a half years ago, when my own wilderness training period was beginning, God gave me some very difficult lessons concerning care in using words correctly.  I was very badly burned on a couple of occasions before I learned the proper caution in these matters.  I can see evidences of God testing you on these matters now, and the tests will only become more frequent and more severe until you learn the lesson God desires you to get.  I only pray that you are not so stubborn as to have to face as severe a test in this regard as I faced in order to learn the lesson.  What I am seeing concerns me and makes me think you may actually have to face much worse than I did.  You need to use the same precision with all your Bible study as you do when you are simply picking at nits, and you need to be more willing to give up your preconceptions, not simply claim you are.  

Yes, Aaron should have been a better parent, but not in the way you seem to think.  As high priest Aaron was the spiritual father of the nation.  By refusing to bear their sins, either in the figure of eating the sin offering, or in the reality of stepping between them and God, bearing the worst of the penalty for them while still making them face just enough of the penalty to learn discipline and to live by God's law, Aaron and his sons were consigning them to hell fires and the full wrath of God rather than assisting them in their efforts to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.  Aaron was a very poor father indeed and today's church prefers to follow his example.

I agree with what Ellen White said.  What is not clear to some does not make it error. She was a true prophet and is therefore also a trustworthy source.  Nowhere did she contradict God's Word.


"No they don't"


I said:

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

Sister White said:

He guided the mind in the selection of what to speak and what to write

Brother T, I am not sure if you are a conference paid Minister of the Gospel but Brother, what I said is the same as Sister White said in the same way that the bible refers to the "Sabbath of the Lord" and "Lord of the Sabbath"

God guided their minds to choose the words that He wanted them to use from their vocabulary and with their style.

"He guided the mind in the selection of what to speak and what to write"

false teaching?  Ellen White said this herself.  God inspires people, not words.  He guided the men in selecting the words He wanted them to write.

no.. wrong again Less

He guided the mind in the selection of the words to speak and in the selection of the words to write

"He guided the mind in the selection of what to speak and what to write"

Do you mean Ellen White is wrong Less?  I just quoted what she wrote.  Here it is in context.  I will allow you to see for yourself.  I am not on the side of the beast by the way :)

     God has been pleased to communicate His truth to the world by human agencies, and He Himself, by His Holy Spirit, qualified men and enabled them to do this work. He guided the mind in the selection of what to speak and what to write. The treasure was intrusted to earthen vessels, yet it is, none the less, from Heaven. . . . The obedient, believing child of God beholds in it [the testimony of God] the glory of a divine power, full of grace and truth.  {FLB 11.2}  
     The writers of the Bible had to express their ideas in human language. It was written by human men. These men were inspired of the Holy Spirit. Because of the imperfections of human understanding of language, or the perversity of the human mind, ingenious in evading truth, many read and understand the Bible to please themselves. It is not that the difficulty is in the Bible....  {FLB 11.3}  
     The Scriptures were given to men, not in a continuous chain of unbroken utterances, but piece by piece through successive generations, as God in His providence saw a fitting opportunity to impress man at sundry times and divers places. Men wrote as they were moved upon by the Holy Ghost....  {FLB 11.4}  
     There is not always perfect order or apparent unity in the Scriptures. . . . The truths of the Bible are as pearls hidden. They must be searched, dug out by painstaking effort. Those who take only a surface view of the Scriptures will, with their superficial knowledge, which they think is very deep, talk of the contradictions of the Bible, and question the authority of the Scriptures. But those whose hearts are in harmony with truth and duty will search the Scriptures with a heart prepared to receive divine impressions. The illuminated soul sees a spiritual unity, one grand golden thread running through the whole, but it requires patience, thought, and prayer to trace out the precious golden thread.

Those who like to deny that the Bible is the "Word of God" are imagining that God is not able to use as an instrument of writing the free-will mind of an intelligent being. That God - who already knows all details and all events of the future - cannot figure out a plan whereby His Word gets communicated using a Holy-Spirit-guided free will intelligent mind instead of a pen.

in Christ,


Ellen White offered no new light, she just expounded on what is already there.  Nadab and Abihu offered strange fire and the Bible says:

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;

Ellen White said they were drunk and offered strange fire.   Where is the difference?  Verses 9 and 10 come after Moses spoke to Aaron and his sons after the death of Nadab and Abihu. It is CLEAR that God was explaining to Aaron that it is not appropriate to drink such things as they did when entering the tabernacle so that they can differentiate between the common and the holy.

My point is that by stating the words are not inspired is a moot point as you cannot inspire a word so it is not a valid argument :)

He guided the mind in the selection of what to speak and what to write. The treasure was intrusted to earthen vessels, yet it is, none the less, from Heaven

God guided the mind in which words to choose.  Its a wonderful concept to know that the writers wrote the words God wanted them to so we have no fear in following what was said as IT IS WRITTEN as our Saviour did!


Site Sponsors


Adventist Single?
Meet other Single
Adventists here:
Join Free

USA members:

Support AO by
using this link:


© 2022   Created by Clark P.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service