| Author | Message | ||
| Joyfulheart Registered user Username: Joyfulheart Post Number: 513 Registered: 10-2006 |
I think most of us already know about the wonderful new resource telling of the well - not very biblical Sabbath School quarterly this quarter. Many of our friends here have been the (really outstanding  ) contributors. If you haven't kept up with it, I strongly encourage you to read it. www.biblestudiesforadventists.com I learned today of another outstanding site outlining the nonsense in this quarterly. Here's the link: http://www.nonsda.org/egw/ssq2009/toc.htm I just wanted any new lurkers to know about them - and spread the Word! (pun intended) Joyfulheart | ||
| ~angel~ Registered user Username: ~angel~ Post Number: 477 Registered: 3-2008  |
Joyfulheart thank you for sharing that. I went there to http://www.biblestudiesforadventists.com/ and noticed that Mark Martin and Chris Lee's Commentaries are unlinked. Is there a reason why? I am just courious. | ||
| Joyfulheart Registered user Username: Joyfulheart Post Number: 518 Registered: 10-2006 |
Hi Angel, I think those commentaries just aren't posted, yet. They're posted during the week they're supposed to be studied. I can't wait to see them - as well as Phil's. Dirk Anderson's site has the whole thing posted now. Both sites are helpful and very well done. | ||
| Philharris Registered user Username: Philharris Post Number: 1434 Registered: 5-2007  |
Colleen has been posting them one week at a time, sometimes one day at a time. I assume it is so those who can really benefit from these commentaries will read them as they are doing their regular quarterly studies, one day at a time. Phil | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 9455 Registered: 12-2003  |
Yes, today's commentary by our own Martinc—Martin Carey—is up. Actually, Phil--those that we put up one day at a time are those we receive one day at a time! I have been so amazed and thankful for those who have been writing these studies...this is one of the more difficult writing assignments I've done, and others have told me the same thing. The quarterly is convoluted and is full of straw-man arguments and false but unstated assumptions, and dissecting the arguments down to the bottom line is difficult. I am SO offended by the blasphemous and heretical arguments being fed to Adventists through these SS Quarterly lessons. It is offensive at the deepest levels. Colleen | ||
| Joyfulheart Registered user Username: Joyfulheart Post Number: 521 Registered: 10-2006 |
...and you are doing an A+ first rate job of this, Colleen! That site is a blessing! | ||
| Borninchrist Registered user Username: Borninchrist Post Number: 143 Registered: 1-2009  |
This site has been a blessing to me. I use it as a resource when discussing SS topics with SDA's. I think I might try emailing the link to the SS teachers in my former church. Great job! Thank you! Oh yeah, I'll definitely place a link to it from my blog and website, I'd be honored to do it. George (Message edited by borninchrist on March 01, 2009) | ||
| ~angel~ Registered user Username: ~angel~ Post Number: 483 Registered: 3-2008 |
Oh thanks Joyfulheart, I jumped the gun I guess I'm excited lol. Colleen this is great! You are doing a wonderful job. Thank you so much, it's so helpful. ~Angel~ | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 509 Registered: 7-2005 |
The greatest problem in my opinion, as one who had to struggle with the material in order to provide a meaningful commentary comes primarily from what had NOT been included in the lessons. It seems to me that these lessons are reflecting the phenomena of dysfunctional families in which what is not verbalized does not exist. The lessons are written as it is only fair and normal to isolate some facts describing Ellen's life and work, and capitalize on similarities with biblical prophets and "Behold !, here is another proof that Ellen White is a true prophet". The proof-text method of studying the Bible is extended to their treatment of any other subject, including Ellen White. The context simply does not matter. If nobody mention the context and tries to put things in perspective, the people simply go on like the context does not exist. What is not verbalized is assumed to be non-existent. Consequently it falls on us to remember them the context, the other facts that relates to Ellen White and her deeds, her claims, her writings, in order to open them to reality. And as some others pointed on this forum, questions are useful. For example, they affirm that Ellen is as inspired as the writers of the Bible, but her authority is lesser than the authority of the Bible. My question for them is "What gives to the Bible the greatest authority, if not its inspiration? If inspiration does not give to the Bible the highest authority, what gives it?" Of course, they can do mental gymnastics in order evade these questions, but if we don't ask them those question, nobody from their peers will do. If Adventists who had not truly ponder seriously their faith-system will understand how much sweat is involved in engaging with their convoluted arguments, they will at least have more respect for those who take time and energy in order to engage in interaction with them. Gabriel | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 9463 Registered: 12-2003 |
Whew! So true, Gabriel! Most of those who have been writing commentary for these lessons have said similar things: the chore of trying to unpack the false assumptions and the glossing over of the context and reality of what EGW REALLY says is difficult to address. In fact, I just had a call from one author who said he'd spent a lot of time just trying to figure out exactly what EGW was saying and what she really meant in some of the quoted comments from her. She's so convoluted. Here's a really helpful rule of thumb: truth is never confusing. Evil, on the other hand is confusion. The only time truth might seem "confusing" is when it suddenly slams into our own false beliefs. Then it creates shock waves of cognitive dissonance. But evil and untruth are not clear. They break down; they assume false foundations without stating them. If you feel confused, you've got to evaluate if what you're hearing squares with the Bible. If it doesn't at any point, you've go falsehood on your hands. Truth is never "confusion". Colleen | ||
| Philharris Registered user Username: Philharris Post Number: 1440 Registered: 5-2007 |
Gabriel and Colleen, Through the years I have been involved in numerous kinds of writing. First, there was trade technical writing for classrooom instruction. Later, I researched and wrote family history. In more recent years, I have been doing various Bible studies. The SDA Quarterly commentary has easily been the hardest assignment I have ever tackled. Unraveling what is meant in the Quarterly and replacing it with God's truth is a sobering challenge. I think it is Jrt who introduced the term 'unpacking' to the forum. At first, I didn't know what was meant. Now, I realize and agree that 'unpacking' is why this commentary is so challenging. Phil | ||
| Martinc Registered user Username: Martinc Post Number: 77 Registered: 9-2006 |
So true, Phil and Gabriel. Reading through Ellen and trying to figure out what she meant by certain phrases, such as "righteousness by faith," and "imputed righteousness" was a real chore. Well, I think I understand now, and soon you can read what I found in Sunday's Commentary. Also, I just submitted to Richard a commentary on the Sanctuary lesson, which was fun to write. The IJ is truly a "target-rich environment," and the book of Hebrews is so clear now. However, reading Ellen White requires prayer and extra deep breaths. | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1548 Registered: 7-2003  |
I feel very blessed (and kind of relieved) to hear other authors admit that writing this commentary was one of the toughest things they have ever done. I have to admit that working on the commentary for the Sabbath School lesson made be feel really stupid. I would read and reread and then reread again each lesson. I was just struggling to grasp what logical connection was being made between certain points or between the illustration provided and the main point. Sometimes I couldn't even readily discern the main point. I just felt so confused and stupid and sometimes didn't feel like I could comment cogently because I couldn't commprehend what was being said. I think I'm a reasonably literate person, but I just couldn't quite grasp these lessons. I'm quite relieved to hear others say the same. As far as I can tell there's just no sustainable thread of logic to follow so you end up chasing a bunch of free floating false assumptions all over the place. It's exhasuting and exasperating. Chris | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1549 Registered: 7-2003 |
One other comment..... Many times I was very tempted to just quote from the lesson and say, "this speaks for itself" with no further commentary. I honestly think that for any reasonable person not already snared in a web of lies, this would be enough. For all those evangelicals out there who think that Adventism is just another evangelical denomination with a different day of worship, I think all we would ever need to do correct that view is hand them this lesson quarterly without any further comment. You can't read this thing and continue to think that Adventism is basically okay except for a few small quirks. This lesson demonstrates once and for all that that's just not true. Chris | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 9478 Registered: 12-2003 |
I totally agree. And Chris, the confusion is because they use confusion to snow the people. My sister used to be a home health nurse, and she told me once that she had a colleague, a home health psych nurse, who said to her, "When you leave a patient feeling crazy, it's because they are crazy and they're projecting it onto you, getting you to carry the confusion to justify themselves." (Or words to that effect.) This describes the SS Quarterly to me. It is confusion and craziness, and those who are caught in the deception just think it's erudite and intellectual. It is CRAZINESS, and I do hope and pray that people will read the commentary and see that there are truth and facts available that can cut through the fog of gray, boring confusion they dish up. It reminds me of The Silver Chair by Lewis in the Narnia series. The children find their way into the palace of the Green Witch, and her resident butler person entertains them and brings out a lute (or something like that) and begins to lull them. He throws some green glittery stuff onto the fire to put some sort of hypnotic substance into the air, and he strums: "Thrum, thrum, thrum..." and the children begin to nod. "Thrum, thrum, thrum..." and they fall asleep...and they take in the lies of his song and become off guard and ready to embrace the evil Green Witch when he is done thrumming. That reminds me of the dull, boring, confusing deception of the SS Quarterly. You're right--this lesson demonstrates that Adventism is totally false. Colleen | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 4297 Registered: 9-2006  |
You confused Chris? Ha. I agree the thing should explain itself to any sane mind, how does one explain insanity. There was one of the lessons I really wanted to tackle, the one for Thursday the 14th. I would have made dog meat out of that one, when I read it I could have chewed nails and spit out horse shoes. What ignorance of scripture? What ignorance of God and his ways. I never cease to be amazed at the load of horse pucky they continue to spew out. I was going to ask to do it, but I thought I better not. It might have come out un-printable. River | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 510 Registered: 7-2005 |
Chris, After I just read the lesson about which you spoke, I'm wondering what Pfandle thinks about the average adventist IQs. Really enjoyed the following example he offers for what it means to use texts in a homiletic way. First of all, he offers a definition of homiletics that is laughable:
I love it ! But the example he offers is top notch:
Oh, boy, what I missed, it's the first time I had read this quotation. And what a blessing the other churches miss because they don't have such wonderful counsel. Gabriel | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 9503 Registered: 12-2003 |
Indeed! Colleen | ||
| Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah Post Number: 428 Registered: 1-2004  |
What is done is to make up a good sounding name for the practice of reading things out of context. I think it's actually ingenious. Maybe I can now define the Adventist method of interpreting that "line upon line" text in Isaiah 28... it's a "homiletical" interpretation! Jeremiah | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1743 Registered: 10-2002  |
Wow, that IS incredible. "Homiletics" is the art of taking Scriptures out of context! Giving them a different meaning than what they originally meant. This is unbelievable. I can't believe he's actually writing this kind of stuff. Could we say that any inaccurate use of Scripture was then not "inaccurate", per say, but rather "homiletical"? What an amazing new euphemism he has created. | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 511 Registered: 7-2005 |
It seems that everything that Ellen White touches becomes gold. If she preaches in an irresponsible way from a text without paying any attention to the context, it suddenly becomes "homiletical use". Find a good label, apply it to the questionable practice, and everything is ok. Don't talk about "plagiarism", better use "literary borrowing." That's an old answer coming from the lips of people who had been caught with the hand in the cooking-jar, "I was just borrowing ..." I wonder when Ellen White planned to return what he borrowed from others. Maybe it was something in her last will which I missed. I wonder also if an adventist will find the "homiletical use" answer adequate in the face of their universal mantra "You're taking Ellen White out of context"; "Oh, no, I just used her writings in a homiletical way". Of course, she's a prophet, I'm not even the son of prophet, and sometimes I'm writing for a non-profit organization like FAF, so its hard to ask for the same smooth treatment Ellen White receives. Gabriel | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1745 Registered: 10-2002 |
"Oh, no, I just used her writings in a homiletical way"! LOL! | ||
| Philharris Registered user Username: Philharris Post Number: 1442 Registered: 5-2007 |
Ramone, Does that mean you took her out of her context by putting her into Biblical context? Or, did you put things in your own worldly context? Or, did you quote her verbatum which is the SDA "homiletical" out of Biblical context context? Maybe you could clear this up by giving an example of what you ment. I used to know what 'homiletical' means but now that we can redefine the meaning of words...we can loose track of what is being said.  Fearless Phil |
