| Author | Message | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 636 Registered: 10-2004  |
Also, both the NASB and NIV have footnotes saying "Or race" (instead of "generation"). Jeremy | ||
| Heretic Registered user Username: Heretic Post Number: 83 Registered: 2-2005 |
Randy, I thought it was a convincing and thoroughly researched book. He does a good job of chronicling the many errors made and the statements/utterances of Mrs. White who condemned those who wouldn't believe the failed prophecies. The mobile nature of the "truth", the re-definitions of prophecy was explained very well. I had never seen Miller's 15 "proofs" in print which only left me confused. It was a little like watching Louis Farrakhan's (sp?)Million Man March speech (or 400K Man March, or whatever). It's kind of like a math salad. Take a number here and a number there, it doesn't matter if it makes any sense where it came from, put 'em all together and *presto* you get some magical number that's supposed to mean something. I just had a hard time following Miller's logic. In my opinion, the most destructive and troubling aspect of all of this is that the IJ robs you of the peace and joy that is meant to be experienced by those in Christ. It replaces this with utter despair, hopelessness, self-loathing, and fear in the minds of many people who have bought into it. I think Ratzlaff did a nice job of presenting this key fact. I've been loaned Graffiti in the Holy of Holies by Clifford Goldstein by a friend of mine, so it'll be interesting to see his approach of refuting this book. Ratzlaff's arguments seem pretty iron clad to me, especially the historical information. What could Goldstein have seen that the Committee on Problems in the Book of Daniel, who convened for 5 years, could not? Heretic | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 407 Registered: 7-2004 |
I was a student at Union College during the time that the Committee on Problems was working on their problems. The big cheese in the Religion Department (it was so long ago I can't remember any names) was on that committee and he seemed to be going around muttering to himself all the time, and the religion students kept complaining about how every lecture he gave seemed to come back to the sanctuary question. Of course, at the time none of us knew that he was on the committee, or that the committee even existed, but I can attest to the fact that the question was driving an otherwise really good educator around the bend. | ||
| Jan Registered user Username: Jan Post Number: 30 Registered: 1-2005 |
When were you at Union, Belvalew? | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 408 Registered: 7-2004 |
I was only there for one semester, Winter, 1966. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 1916 Registered: 12-2003  |
"Wearing her braids too tight"---Belva, I had to laugh! Heretic, I'll be interested in your reaction to the Goldstein. I had trouble following his logic and lots of trouble with what I perceived as condescension when he couldn't come up with scholarship. But you may have a different take on it... Praise God for calling us to truth! Colleen | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 264 Registered: 3-2005 |
Just to follow up on Mark 13:30. As Jeremy mentioned, that word generation can also mean race. Then, in verse 32, Jesus, i think clarifies this some, "But of that day and hour no one knows,..." I don't think He would be making a prediction in verse 30, about this current generation, when He so clearly states that no man knows, and while on earth, even Jesus in that same verse said He didn't know, only the Father knew. There have been many excuses made by EGW apologists, for the false prophecy she made in 1856. One common excuse used is the prophecy of Jonah, as being a conditional prophecy. It is very interesting that Mormons and JWs also use the same excuse for their so called conditional prophecies, and this is well documented by Hank Hanegraf at www.equip.org, and you do a search for Jonah, and there is a good explanation of Jonah's conditional prophecy. (Sorry I don't have the exact link) Stan | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 267 Registered: 3-2005 |
In the current (Jan, Feb '05), Adventist Today, is an interview with Clifford Goldstein interviewed by Ervin Taylor. You almost, can read between the lines that there might be some cracks in his armor--I was trying to look for some glimmer of hope--I believe we should pray for him, that the blinders should be removed. But this Q and A really gets to the crux of these issues. Taylor, "In Graffiti... you state that 'I can accept that Ellen White, EVEN AS A PROPHET, WAS FALLIBLE...she made mistakes, grew in her understanding of doctrine and theology.' What criteria do you use when deciding when Ellen White made a mistake in her theology? Goldstein: "The Bible, what else? Everything, even what she writes, needs to be tested by the Bible...." This is where such an enormous problem comes in. How can you believe in the doctrine of Inspiration of Scripture, and then believe in a fallible prophet? I just wonder, from reading this interview whether he truly believes what he is saying. If anyone else has access to this interview, I would appreciate your thoughts. There is something about this guy, that just doesn't seem genuine, and that is why I thought this interview was especially interesting. Stan | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 1922 Registered: 12-2003 |
Stan, we have the magazine, but I haven't read that interview yet. I will. I agree, though--something about him seems agenda-driven. Oddly, several years ago I had an impression that I needed to pray for Goldstein. I did for a while, but I have largely quit doing so. ONly once in a while the thought occurs to me. Thanks for reminding me to pray for him. Colleen | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 269 Registered: 3-2005 |
Colleen, I think you are right. When you read the interview, look at his picture. That expression on his face tells me a lot--I shouldn't judge-I suppose. But again, the way he gives those answers just makes me highly suspicious that he doesn't believe what he is saying, and I think he likes the attention he is getting from his big role in being SDA's apologist. I will say the same thing for Batchelor--He doesn't come across as sincere either. Stan | ||
| Dt Registered user Username: Dt Post Number: 29 Registered: 4-2005 |
Stan, Describing Goldstein's answer in the magazine article just highlights the frustration of even dealing with EGW in the first place. I had a frustrating conversation with a close relative last week. Even using her writings agains her is like standing on an innertube on a river. There are no absolutes, even though they talk about her as an absolute truthful writer. Some SDA's describe her writing as equal to scripture, siding with the White Estate. These at least make sense, in a twisted way. Others, like my relative, just pick and choose while still claiming her prophetic and inspired. That is the crux of the problem Goldstein highlights. If SOMEONE would just tell you exactly what is or is not inspired, what is just opinione etc. it would at least be somewhat palatable. They won't, of course because (as we all know) as soon as you start throwing out some of EGW as un-inspired, it is simpler to just dispense with her entirely. The only absolute about EGW is that the whole subject is ABSOLUTELY maddening. | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 281 Registered: 3-2005 |
Dt,I ABSOLUTELY agree with you. Thanks for those thoughts. The same is true with the Bible, if you decide that some of it is not inspired, then, you really have nothing. The entire Word of God is ABSOLUTELY true! I am thankful we have the Bible as the standard to measure any other so-called truth. EGW does not measure up to that standard. Stan | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 648 Registered: 10-2004 |
Here is what then-General Conference President Robert Folkenberg said in his June 9, 1997 "Off the Back Burner" section of "From the G.C. President":
And in the June 2, 1997 edition he wrote that the Bible is NOT infallible:
All I can say is "wow"... By the way, it sounds like he had a whole series of these types of articles around that time. If you want to read other editions, you can do so here: http://www.folkenberg.net/FTP/1997_archives.htm Jeremy | ||
| Tisha Registered user Username: Tisha Post Number: 53 Registered: 3-2005 |
That was the very arguement used against my questioning when I was growing up - not by my parents, but by teachers, pastors, and others. They would use the "inconsistencies" in the Bible to show how EGW's inconsistencies were of the same nature. The problem I had with that is when EGW said "God showed me" I couldn't see how she could make an error about that. And I never could understand how God could change his mind and reverse His Truth, or even worse purposely mislead us as in "covering our eyes" so we wouldn't notice error. However, that said, I still cannot reconcile those inconsistencies that are in the Bible as quoted here from above - -------------------------------------------------- "Consider the frustrating task a verbal inspirationist has trying to reconcile Matthewís genealogy of our Lord with Lukeís. Or why does Genesis 15:13-16 seem to offer a different length of time for the Hebrewsí sojourn in Egypt than we find in Exodus 12:40? Or look at the four different records we get when we read what each gospel writer said Pilate ordered to be placed over Jesus on the cross.î -------------------------------------------------- Those are questions I still have. But I know I can trust that I don't need to understand that to know that I am saved by Jesus Blood. I have come to a place where I can rest assured in my salvation through Him rather than in the ability to understand everything at this time. That is so freeing! -tisha | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 422 Registered: 7-2004 |
Does it amaze you, as it does me, that so many SDA men of the cloth are willing to equivocate in order to allow EGW equal standing with the authors of the Bible? What got me was his bringing up Jesus' geneologies as stated by Matthew and Luke. That was solved for me a long while ago by this: Matthew is stating Joseph's lineage, Luke is stating Mary's. God was careful to be certain that Jesus would be seen to be a "Son of David" no matter which of his parent's backgrounds you considered. The rest of this stuff is just bunk! Excuse making for EGW. When people find fault with her writings, it's not over whether she got the number of rooms in a building right. It's over whether she actually prophecied correctly. Counting rooms is not prophecy. Saying that certain people will live until Jesus returns is prophecy. Belva | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 284 Registered: 3-2005 |
Jeremy, You continue to come up with such terrific material! Thanks for corroborating how thoroughly twisted and inconsistent the SDA doctrine of scripture is--And it's strictly so they can continue the White Lie (Thanks Walter Rea also!) | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 1938 Registered: 12-2003 |
I remember when Folkenberg was running those articles in the Review. In restrospect, two things jump out at me: First about two years (or 2 1/2--but then, my calculations are not inspired!), Folkenberg was fired as a result of a lawsuit filed against him by a long-time business partner. The details of his personal forays into money-making and manipulation were astonishing. There's a sort-of stark relief here--reading these "pious-sounding" explanations of how God functions with His people, and looking backward to see the deplorable, hidden, sneaky schemes he was engaged in as he penned those words. Second, once again, there's that lack of trust that God gave us an eternal word. He's poking at linguistics, when translations and language have been changing for millennia. In spite of language's metamorphoses, God's directions and revelations have never failed to mean the same things to Christians for 2,000 years. The Bible has had no need to be edited to adapt to changing times or geography. What a foolish argument! This analysis of "inspiration" is merely a disingenuous method of protecting Ellen--of course. Interestingly, protecting Ellen was useful to Folkenberg. He could slide his unethical (if not illegal) activities under the shield of her words about separating the sacred from the secular and thus justify himself. The Bible never gives us permission as Christ-followers to separate sacred from secular. When we are in Christ, every move and decision we make is for the honor of God and for the purpose of His glory. All our lives are to be holy--dedicated to Him and surrendered to Him. As Stan said above, Adventist doctrine (and practice, I might add) is "thoroughly twisted and inconsistent". Only in Christ is this confusion eliminated. Only in Christ can we find protection from the self-deception that underlies falling away and heresy. I pray to stay clothed in His aromor and protected by His Spirit. Colleen | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 652 Registered: 10-2004 |
Maybe he thought everything the Bible had to say about financial matters, etc., was part of the "common" and not the "sacred," and thus "uninspired." After all, it only relates to "common" everyday business transactions! I am probably being too sarcastic, but it shows how dangerous that belief about "the sacred" and "the common" is. Who gets to decide which parts of the Bible are "common" and thus not inspired??? Jeremy | ||
| Dt Registered user Username: Dt Post Number: 31 Registered: 4-2005 |
Indeed. Was it just "a discussion of the common" when she saw that the door to salvation was shut? (even Robert Olson of the White Estate admits she "probably" misread that prophecy. Even then, she never directly repudiated her interpretation.) Scripture? Was it just common when she saw in vision that when Jesus went into the Most Holy Place in 1844 he let Satan occupy the throne and breathe his unholy influence on those that stopped believing Jesus was coming on 10/22/1844? Which of the Biblical writers had to be questioned repeatedly about stealing writings from others? Which of them continually lied about doing so? Jeremy, who get to decide which parts of EGW are common and not inspired? Is a guide outlining what is and is not inspired being prepared by the White Estate? I'm not holding my breath. We were duped. And we paid them to do it. Unbelievable. Happily Un-Duped, DT | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 1481 Registered: 3-2004  |
AMEN! Happily unduped and forever with Jesus. He is awesome. Diana |
