Adventist Online

does anyone know if there are any transcripts of veiths talks? i dont want to listen to any of the talks, and i dont particularly want to read what he has to say either, but i do need it for research. :)

Views: 17748

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Irish,

You are quite wrong about me. But then I'm not sure why you pretend to know me. I have prayerfully and attentively watched two entire series of Walter Veith's work plus assorted other DVD presentations. Over 60 DVD's in total. I have spent a hundred fold more time watching Dr. Veith and studying his message as I have spent "blustering here". I know "what Veith really says".  I have studied the contents of these DVD's with a group. This further probing of the "facts" presented by Walter Veith is what has lead me and others to the position that Dr. Veith presents many, many things as "fact" when they are unverifiable. Don't get me wrong, many of his conspiracy theories are juicy and attractive. They titillated and excited the emotions of anyone who has read the Great Controversy and eagerly awaits the return of our Lord. But his "facts" just did not hold up under further study. I personally don't think it is productive to push people toward a positive end result (accepting Jesus Christ) with falsehood. No good can come from a message not built on the Rock.

 

You can disparage me as much as you want. None of that makes all of what Dr. Veith says factual. You say "Veith has literally thousands of citations of real studies" yet you cannot point to any that "prove" the two falsehoods myself and others have questioned.

 

Please do more than telling me there are "thousands of citations of real studies" because myself and others have looked for them exhaustively and could not find "real" studies to back up his "facts". (We did find other conspiracy theory websites but they too did not link to any factual basis.) So please just point me to the basis of his "facts" that you are referring to. If you cannot do that, I will assume that you, like me, could not find a basis in fact for some of what Dr. Veith teaches.

 

I see this as important stuff. Do we believe in TRUTH or do we believe who we like?

 

God bless

Vincenzo,

 

I am taking your statements in this forum post in toto in making my statements about you.  I don't need to speak about you like I know you, and in fact I didn't.  It's self evident from what you say that you don't really watch Veith with an open mind.  I take at face value your statement that you have studied the contents of the DVDs with a group, but I'd like to know the agendae of this group.  Who are they?  

 

Which of his so-called "conspiracy theories" do you take issue with?  One example, please.  You speak as if all he does is an endless stream of conspiracy theories.  If you'd step back and watch them with an actual open mind, you'd see that these "conspiracy theories" he supposedly espouses make up less than 1% of what he talks about, but they make up 100% of what you talk about in reference to him.  He tells the truth as found in Adventism, period.  

 

The reason I can't do more than tell you about thousands of citations of real studies is that they are contained in his videos, which you clearly haven't watched with any kind of open mind.  I don't have the time or inclination to educate you on how to do basic research before you make statements like you do.

Irish,

LOL!  I have refuted your original claim that "you haven't watched anything he's done" by telling you that I've watched a HUGE amount of what Walter Veith has done.  And now you respond again with an attempt to correct the information I gave about my own experience?  You think you know me and my history better than I do?  You don't.  You have never met me.  You are 100% wrong when you say "you don't really watch Veith with an open mind".  Yes, I did.  I was impressed with his wealth of supposed knowledge.  No one had an agenda against him.  It was only when we probed deeper that we came up with instance after instance after instance of his "research" being only a conspiracy theory website which itself was not sourced.  I challenge others to probe deeper into all his claims as well.  They will find the same thing.

 

You suggest that his conspiracy theories make up less than 1% of his talks.  I found it to be much higher with these theories constantly woven into his presentations.  But here are some titles from his Total Onslaught series:  The Secret Behind Secret Societies, Hidden Agendas, Revolutions Tyrants and Wars, A New World Order, The New Age Agenda, etc.  I know for a fact that all of these presentations (and many others) contain unfounded conspiracy theories.  So at least 5 out of 36 DVD's are conspiracy theory oriented.  That's more than 1% if my math is right.

 

But who cares what the percentage is.  The real question is:  What percentage of falsehood would be acceptable to you?  Would 15% be too much?  Would 2% be acceptable?  1%?   I suggest that we should not accept ANY falsehood presented as fact.  0%.  If Dr. Veith has made honest mistakes, let him say so.  If he keeps presenting falsehood as fact (or continues selling his DVD series where he does that), then there is a very big problem.

 

Please give examples of the "thousands of citations of real studies".  I suggest that those "real" citations to factual studies don't exist.  Please prove me wrong.  (But please stick to the issue at hand and don't bother trying to tell me about my experience - or lack thereof - when you have never met me and clearly do not know my experience.  Thank you.)

"Our General Conferences theological research organization (BRI) had to write an article (naming Dr. Veith) to say how one "truth" presented by Dr. Veith (KJV/textus receptus ONLY) is in fact false."

 

Is our general conference the final authority on what is right and what is not, or is the scripture?

If you remember right sister White had her self sent the conference president away saying he was a servant of Satan once, and when he told her who she was she said I know who you are.. now leave.

What the conference thinks means nothing, only the word of God matters. Please quote something he has stated that is not true according to scripture in it's full context if you are going to tear down his work instead of quoting others who are not making any definitive statement except one saying that they don't like the guy....

 

If you are going to ask people to "show how the two things Dr. Veith preaches as "truth" are actually factual or based in reality.  Please don't tell me all the good things he preaches." then please in a spirit of intellectual honesty provide something he has taught that you believe is not true, and provide the source for your information so it can be properly addressed.

 

I concur. One of the tests though for me is that the only one that says "the seventh day" instead of

"a seventh day" is the KJV... That one little word can lead to much false doctrine... Although I do let my 9 year old have a NKJV.. the old English is to much for him at this point and he study's with me mostly any way so I can correct stuff where need be.

Br. Scott,

I do believe that the best use of our resources is to not entertain those who are obviously of the ilk to condemn the workers who Sister White has in so many instances upheld in her writings. 

Anyone who does actually read the SOP will know what and where I am talking about. 

Let us not get frustrated by the tares who don't even look like tares but like an obvious weed.  We have to let Jesus sort out the motives but we do know that those who are doing a good work will be condemned for it and as the SOP states so many times we will have to fear more from within the church  than from without.  We have so many who have no idea what truth is especially among those who profess to be pastors that it is dangerous not to have a clear and working knowledge of the Bible and SOP for ourselves.  Br. Veith even said in one of his lectures that the ppl he fears are not out their but in the sda church.  The people out there can see plainly what he is presenting but the ppl in the church who want to be included in the ecumenical movement and have influence with other denominations are the ones who hate the truth and fear Br. Veith and Pipim for exposing satan and his working in the other churches as well as ours. 

Ever since 1842 the other churches have not had the Spirit working in their churches expressly.  There was a noticeable drop in true spiritual power in the sunday churches ever since they started closing the doors to the Three Angels Messages.  Yes there is power today but that power is from another source but they don't realise it or believe that they are worshipping satan. 

They need to be called out of babylon but these people who condemn Br Veith and Pipim would have you believe that we don't need to call them out just tell them of Jesus Love.  It is a sappy lack of power gospel that has no ability to help a person to overcome and therefore there is  no truth in it.  Yes a drop of poison will poison the whole just like a little leaven with leaven the whole lump. 

We have the only message for a dying world and God has given us the priveledge to preach it and teach it but most do not even know it or are too afraid to have anyting to do with it.  It is not a popular message and therefore supposed sda pastors who are dumb dogs who will not bark and watchmen who will not give the trumpet a certain sound want you to stop the work and preach peace and safety, because we are interferring with their parties with babylon. I say NO

Preach the truth, the PURE POWERFUL WORD that only can see you one day live without sin hating it and loving Jesus in Spirit and in Truth.  This is the message that Br. Veith and Pipim among others preach and this is the message that so many false sheperds in the sda church hate. 

Is it any wonder we have so much opposition on this forum, not at all.  Again, we have more to fear from within, from these blind false sheperds and not so blind ones who preach sappy sermons knowing it won't lead to victory just so they can be popular, than we do from without the church. 

The end is not far off and these sleeping sheperds or sheperds who know what they are doing and have hidden motives and agenda's must be shown to be what they are for their own sakes because one day soon those who they have deceived will turn against them and nash them with their teeth.

Is it any wonder that Sister White in the SOP said that the vast majority of those who call themselves sda's today will be lost.  It is because of the very happenings we see on this forum before us.  Supposed concerned ppl who have the best interests of the church in heart and need to protect it from those few who are preaching a message of power and victory.  WOW!!  Thanks, but I don't need your help to keep the truth away from me, I welcome it with open arms and rejoice that my eyes have been opened to the workings of satan and now I am equiped with enough knowledge to know what is happening in the world around us.  Amen and thank our Sweet Precious Lord Jesus for faithful Br.'s like Veith and Pipim.  Amen

I am a little skeptical on what Bro. Veit had to say on Bible Versions (after listening to the whole lecture). Some info came out from the White Estate in 1965.

 

Below are quotations from a Document entitled:


"The E.G. White Counsel  on Versions"

"In her writings Mrs E.G. White made use of the various English translations of the Holy Scriptures that were available in her day. She does not, however, comment directly on the relative merits of these versions, but it is clear from her practice that she recognized the desirability of making use of the best in all versions of the Bible."

"It is significant that almost immediately after the appearance of the English Revised Version, Mrs White made use of it in her books, as she did also the American Revised Version when it became available in 1901."  Arthur L. White, December 9, 1953.

"As to Mrs White's attitude toward the revisions of 1885 and 1901, and as to her own use of these in preaching and writing, her son, W. C. White, who was closely associated with her in her public ministry and in the preparation and publication of her books, wrote in 1931:"

"We cannot find in Sister white's writings, nor do I find in my memory, any condemnation of the American Revised Version of the Holy Scriptures. Sister White's reasons  for not using the A.R.V. in the pulpit are as follows:

"There are many person's in the congregation who remember the words of the texts we might use as they are presented in the Authorized Version (KJV), and to read from the Revised Version would introduce perplexing questions in their minds as to why the wording of the text had been changed by the revisers and as to why it was being used by the speaker. She did not advise me in a positive way not to use the A.R.V., but she intimated to me quite clearly that it would be better not to do so, as use of the different wording brought perplexity to the older members of the congregation."" E.G. White Document File, No. 579; Ministry, April, 1947, pp. 17, 18.

E. G. White Estate, Inc.
Washington, D.C.
May 1965

Good material Matt. Thank you. Over the years I've been interested to see that Mrs. White, and other studious people in early Adventism, used the KJV, and occasionally versions such as Leeser's, Noye's, Wakefield, Campbell, the Revised Version, Rotherhams, and the American Standard Version.

Speaking of the Bible critics, Mrs. White commented,

 

"Some look to us gravely and say, "Don't you think there might have been some mistake in the copyist or in the translators?" This is all probable..." (1SM 16)

 

In her view it was not only possible, but "probable", that the translators made mistakes. But such errors are certainly surmountable by any serious Bible student. Our "KJV only" people, encouraged by Mr. Vieth's presentations, would do well to pause and consider.

Here's the full context of that statement in Selected Messages book 1 Page 16 in a chapter entitled "The Inspiration of the Word of God".  It hardly focuses on the "probability" of translators making mistakes.  It also has nothing to do with the KJV only controversy.  In fact, since the KJV was the authorized version of her day, she was probably talking about it.  Beware, folks, of partial quotes and misstatements.

 

"There are men who strive to be original, who are wise above what is written; therefore, their wisdom is foolishness. They discover wonderful things in advance, ideas which reveal that they are far behind in the comprehension of the divine will and purposes of God. In seeking to make plain or to unravel mysteries hid from ages from mortal man, they are like a man floundering about in the mud, unable to extricate himself and yet telling others how to get out of the muddy sea they themselves are in. This is a fit representation of the men who set themselves to correct the errors of the Bible. No man can improve the Bible by suggesting what the Lord meant to say or ought to have said. {1SM 16.1}

Some look to us gravely and say, "Don’t you think there might have been some mistake in the copyist or in the translators?" This is all probable, and the mind that is so narrow that it will hesitate and stumble over this possibility or probability would be just as ready to stumble over the mysteries of the Inspired Word, because their feeble minds cannot see through the purposes of God. Yes, they would just as easily stumble over plain facts that the common mind will accept, and discern the Divine, and to which God’s utterance is plain and beautiful, full of marrow and fatness. All the mistakes will not cause trouble to one soul, or cause any feet to stumble, that would not manufacture difficulties from the plainest revealed truth. {1SM 16.2}

 God committed the preparation of His divinely inspired Word to finite man. This Word, arranged into books, the Old and New Testaments, is the guidebook to the inhabitants of a fallen world, bequeathed to them that, by studying and obeying the directions, not one soul would lose its way to heaven. [BEGIN P.17] {1SM 16.3}

Those who think to make the supposed difficulties of Scripture plain, in measuring by their finite rule that which is inspired and that which is not inspired, had better cover their faces, as Elijah when the still small voice spoke to him; for they are in the presence of God and holy angels, who for ages have communicated to men light and knowledge, telling them what to do and what not to do, unfolding before them scenes of thrilling interest, waymark by waymark in symbols and signs and illustrations. {1SM 17.1}

And He [God] has not, while presenting the perils clustering about the last days, qualified any finite man to unravel hidden mysteries or inspired one man or any class of men to pronounce judgment as to that which is inspired or is not. When men, in their finite judgment, find it necessary to go into an examination of scriptures to define that which is inspired and that which is not, they have stepped before Jesus to show Him a better way than He has led us. {1SM 17.2}

I take the Bible just as it is, as the Inspired Word. I believe its utterances in an entire Bible. Men arise who think they find something to criticize in God’s Word. They lay it bare before others as evidence of superior wisdom. These men are, many of them, smart men, learned men, they have eloquence and talent, the whole lifework [of whom] is to unsettle minds in regard to the inspiration of the Scriptures. They influence many to see as they do. And the same work is passed on from one to another, just as Satan designed it should be, until we may see the full meaning of the words of Christ, "When the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" (Luke 18:8). {1SM 17.3}

Thanks Irishtiger for the full passage. However, there was nothing misleading in Stewart's partial quotation. If Ellen White thought it probable for there to be "some mistake in the copyist or in the translators" in the KJV, then this statement by default applies to all versions.

I think we need to remember as Ellen White pointed out further from that passage: "All the mistakes will not cause trouble to one soul, or cause any feet to stumble, that would not manufacture difficulties from the plainest revealed truth."

Thanks, Matt.  I can certainly agree with that.  Stewart's point seemed to me to be one that would mislead one into thinking the KJV only crowd are not correct.  I prefer to let actual statements do that rather than misquoted ones.

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