Adventist Online

I have been looking at supposed SDA online sites. Unfortunately I am getting more and more confused with who is I find this guy teaching a 2520 prophecy..and all accounts he is an SDA layman.

How many more are amongst us? Do you ever think you are reading an SDA site when in fact it's not of our teaching?


A Review of Jeff Pippenger’s teachings - Norman McNulty, M.D.



*** Adventist Online Admin Note ***
Since this discussion is the top search result on Google for the term "Jeff Pippenger", we have seen a 'round up the troops' movement of Pippenger supporters.  They come here to defend beliefs which the Seventh-day Adventist Church has found to be baseless.  Beliefs which have lead these same supporters of Jeff Pippenger to leave the Seventh-day Adventist Church.  This is a web site for Seventh-day Adventists by Seventh-day Adventists.  Each new member must answer "Yes" to the following question to create a profile here:  "Do you agree to uphold the principles and beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist church in your conduct on this site and follow the Site Rules & Guidelines?"

Our Site Rules & Guidelines includes the following rule:

12. This is a site by Seventh-day Adventists for Seventh-day Adventists.  We welcome all seekers of God's truth here.  We believe that God will continue to reveal His truth to His people as time progresses.  Thus we are constantly seeking a better understanding of God and His word.  We welcome all that are doing the same. That said, if it becomes apparent that your purpose in being a member of this site is to promote a different agenda and/or sow discord among the brethren, your ability to interact with this site may be restricted.

We ask that all members uphold the pledge they made when joining this site.

Views: 33205

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I have.

You are wrong, First, the EGW Estates admits that the article is written by James White. Second, the quote within the article is from J. V. Himes Review and Herald article November 13, 1844. Obviously, James White changed his views as time passed. We all admit that. The point is that Sister White endorsed his writing in the review at that time, especially in the reprinting of the 1st and 2nd angels' messages proclaimed from 1840 to 1844. Regarding the midnight cry Sister White states, "On this path the Advent people were traveling to the city, which was at the farther end of the path. They had a bright light set up behind them at the beginning of the path, which an angel told me was the midnight cry. This light shone all along the path and gave light for their feet so that they might not stumble. If they kept their eyes fixed on Jesus, who was just before them, leading them to the city, they were safe." {EW 14.1}

You are wrong, First, the EGW Estates admits that the article is written by James White

Where do they say that?  You still haven't produced a link to the article itself either.  I have.  And it is not written by James White.

Second, the quote within the article is from J. V. Himes Review and Herald article November 13, 1844.

Correct.  Himes was an original author.  But the Review and Herald was not in existence when it was published. James White was not the author as claimed.

Let's stick to the facts.  Not produce dueling endorsements by EGW.  If you weigh her endorsements of the 1863 chart along with her endorsement of Smith's Daniel and the Reveleation, I think it's pretty clear what she felt about the 2520.

Progressive revelation of truth... that's what is about.  We must not go back to a time capsule of beliefs the Millerites held.  There is way too much falsehood there.  Are you also a Sunday keeper and anti-Trinitarian?  I didn't think so.


1. They say that on the CD-Rom. 2. No one has ever claimed that James White wrote the words quoted.

Also, progressive revelation does not mean giving upon the foundation of our faith. Endorsements of the 1863 chart. where does Sister white say anything about the 1863 charts being a fulfillment of prophecy. Many, many visual aids have been produced by our church, and they are all fine in their own way, but there is no way that the 1863 charts replaced the 1843 and 1850 charts or undid the truths that were the foundation of Adventism. 

The Bible says that those charts that fulfilled history would "speak and not lie". How do the 1863 charts speak? How do they fulfill Habakkuk? 

This is all secondary information.  We first have to determine if there actually is a 2520 prophecy described in Leviticus 26.

The Bible suggests there is not.  The Biblical language that is used in Leviticus 26 is NEVER used anywhere else in scripture to indicate seven years.  When used as it is in Lev. 26, it is always used as an adverb to describe intensity, not time.

The Use and Misuse of Strong’s Concordance at Leviticus 26

The 2520 has never been a foundation of our faith... unless you are a Millerite rather than a Seventh-day Adventist.  So as a Millerite, do you keep Sunday, don't believe in the Trinity, believe Christ is going to return in 1843... oops... 1844, and also believe in the 2520?

I believe God is progressively revealing His truth.  Truth remains.  Error falls away.  I don't believe in time-capsule faith and believing something just because our founders did.  Particularly if it is not supported by Scripture.

PS.  Please provide your sources rather than hearsay:  "They say that on the CD-ROM"

Vince, You make a very strong claim. 

"The Biblical language that is used in Leviticus 26 is NEVER used anywhere else in scripture to indicate seven years." 

The reality is that language in Leviticus 26 is never used any where else in Scripture, period. How are we to then understand it? We must try to understand the context and why Moses would choose to write this prophecy regarding the chastisement of Israel in this fashion.

For a hint, I refer to Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation by Wm. Shea page 74. 

"Not only do apocalyptic time periods appear in symbolic contexts, but they are expressed on occasion in unusual time units. The  evening-mornings" of Daniel 8:14 presents an example of this. That composite unit does not appear elsewhere in the OT as a unit by which time was commonly quantified numerically. It probably was selected for this prophecy because it was particularly appropriate for the sanctuary activity and the symbolism involved with it. Again, the 31 1/2 'iddlan or "times" of Daniel 7:25 are not the normal expressions of the Bible writers to denote time units. Although some commentators hold that this term is simply another word for "years," there is no lexical evidence from either biblical or extrabiblical sources to support such a contention. The point is that a time unit was used here which was intentionally symbolic, and those symbolic units must be interpreted to determine the actual time period intended by the writer. The use of unusual time units that were not ordinarily employed for the computation of time, such as "evening-mornings," "times," and to some extent, even  weeks,"lends support to the idea that something more than just literal time is involved here. Unusual units like these fit better with symbolic time and probably were chosen to emphasize that point."

No one has ever claimed that James White wrote the words quoted.


Here is Jackson claiming James White wrote it:

Brother James White: "Our minds were directed to that point of time, [1843,] from the fact that dating the several prophetic periods from those years in which the best chronologers assign the fulfillment of those events which were to mark their commencement, they all seemed to terminate that year. This was, however, only apparent. We date the 'seven times,' or 2520 years, from the captivity of Manasseh..."

Here is you saying James White wrote it:

As Jackson notes above, James white endorsed the 2520 in the Review at the time Sister White Made the above statement. It seems deceptive to use Ellen white's endorsement of her husband's writing in the Review and apply it to something he wrote 13 years later and not apply it to a contemporary article.

Don't worry.  You guys aren't the first and won't be the last.  Every other pro-2520 website claims James White wrote it too.

Seems dishonest to me.

Vince, it is simply in an article that James White wrote that reflects his views at the time. That is all that anyone has ever claimed.

That's not what you (or any other 2520 proponent) has said here before.  It's pretty clear from the two quotes above what Jackson and you both said.

Now you say:

No one has ever claimed that James White wrote the words quoted.

Vs. what you said before (emphasis mine):

It seems deceptive to use Ellen white's endorsement of her husband's writing in the Review and apply it to something he wrote 13 years later and not apply it to a contemporary article.

Theodore the following quote was given by EGW about the church papers (including the Review which published the 2520 article by James White in 1864).  James White didn't write the article on his own refuting the 2520! The other men in charge of the paper with him, worked with him.  I give a second quote that was written stating that in 1865 is when James White had his breakdown.  One year after the 1864 article refuting the 2520.

Improving Church Papers.--"Both papers, [Review and Herald and the Signs of the Times] need more help ...,that the papers shall not bear the stamp of one man's mind and of his peculiar temperament. All have their strong points and their weak points; and all have prejudices and likes and dislikes which will be in danger of cropping out in the paper. There should be several whose judgment should blend together; while one is weak in some points the others will be able to supply the deficiency. This is what God designed should exist in the carrying forward of His work upon the earth. His servants, diverse in temperament, in tastes, in habits, should all blend together and compose a perfect whole.

None should feel that he can accomplish the work of making the paper all it should be, without the help of another. You [Elder James White] cannot do this; Elder Waggoner cannot do it. Elder Smith cannot do it; for these papers must not bear the stamp of any one man's mind. Not one is sufficient of himself. All will not run in the same groove, but all will have the same object in view and all will harmonize in bringing about the best results." Publishing Ministry, Chapter 9 

Selected Messages Book 2, Chapter 31 - "Many years ago [1865], while my husband was bearing heavy responsibilities in Battle Creek, the strain began to tell on him. His health failed rapidly. Finally he broke down in mind and body, and was unable to do anything. My friends said to me, "Mrs. White, your husband cannot live." I determined to remove him to a place more favorable for his recovery. His mother said, "Ellen, you must remain and take care of your family."

"Mother," I replied, "I will never allow that masterly brain to fail entirely. I will work with God, and God will work with me, to save my husband's brain."  SM Book 2, Chp. 31 

Theodore you also need to go to Testimonies for the Church, Volume 1, chapter 106 and read the below quote in context.  For those who say James White was not in his right mind in 1864 cannot sustain that date!  It wasn't until 1865 that he fell apart and EGW explains why!

"For the past twenty years those who have been reproved, and their sympathizers, have indulged an accusing spirit toward my husband, which has worn upon him more than any other one of the cruel burdens he has unjustly borne. And when he fell beneath his burdens, many of those who had been reproved rejoiced, and from a mistaken idea of my view of his case, December 25, 1865, were much comforted with the thought that the Lord at that time reproved him for "cutting and slashing." This is all a mistake. I saw no such thing. That my brethren may know what I did see in the case of my husband, I give the following, which I wrote and handed to him the next day after I had the vision:  

I was shown in vision, December 25, 1865, the case of the servant of the Lord, my husband, Elder James White. I was shown that God had accepted his humiliation, and the afflicting of his soul before Him, and his confessions of his lack of consecration to God, and his repentance for the errors and mistakes in his course which have caused him such sorrow and despondency of mind during his protracted illness.

I was shown that his greatest wrong in the past has been an unforgiving spirit toward those brethren who have injured his influence in the cause of God and brought upon him extreme suffering of mind by their wrong course. He was not as pitiful and compassionate as our heavenly Father has been toward His erring, sinning, repenting children. When those who have caused him the greatest suffering acknowledged their wrongs heartily and fully, he could and did forgive them, and fellowship them as brethren. But although the wrong was healed in the sight of God, yet he sometimes in his own mind probed that wound, and by referring to the past he suffered it to fester and make him unhappy." 1T, Chp. 106

I'm not sure that I follow your argument.


Site Sponsors


Adventist Single?
Meet other Single
Adventists here:
Join Free

USA members:

Support AO by
using this link:


© 2021   Created by Clark P.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service