Archive through November 10, 2006 Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Former Adventist Fellowship Forum » ARCHIVED DISCUSSIONS 5 » Five Questions for WalkOnWater (and any searching Adventists) » Archive through November 10, 2006 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Walkonwater
Registered user
Username: Walkonwater

Post Number: 107
Registered: 9-2006
Posted on Thursday, November 09, 2006 - 8:00 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hello Lone,

Lone says,
ìNice try, Walk, but the phrasing in the original language of Heb. 9:4 strongly suggests that the writer was tying together the symbolic signifigance of the Alter of Incense and the Most Holy Place. The reading could well mean that the Alter sat immedietly in front of the curtain. The Jews (and middle easterners in general) don't approach measurements of length, time, space etc., as we here in the west.î

Lone: You say,
ìThe reading could well mean that the Alter sat immedietly in front of the curtain.î

WOW responds:
It is not a matter of ìÖ could Öî, it is a fact that the Golden Alter of Incense DID in fact sit immediately in front of the curtain in the Holy Place. And on the other side of the curtain was the Ark of the Covenant sitting in the Holy of Holies. Thus the Alter of Incense was in the Holy Place not in the Holy of Holies.

Lone, you say,
ìThe Jews (and middle easterners in general) don't approach measurements of length, time, space etc., as we here in the west.î

WOW responds,
I hear you saying that the Jewsí approach to measurement was different, so it is okay to say that the Alter of Incense was IN the Holy of Holies since it was NEAR the Holy of Holies. That would be like a doctor saying, ìThe man appears to be in perfect health because his head is nearly attached to his body.î

In addition, the contention that ìJewish measurement was different,î does not hold water either. God gave Moses EXACT dimensions, in excruciating detail, for every single iota of the tabernacle and everything in it. The Bible makes it clear Moses followed these instructions in their minutest detail. To make a mistake of four or five feet with the Alter of Incense,when everything else was measured to the ìclosest millimeterî, would be unthinkable.

Finally, you and Colleen appeal to human reasoning, found in Bible Commentaries, to try to explain away the error in Hebrews 9:4. If it had been Ellen White who made the mistake and the SDA Church tried to explain away the error using human logic, it would be hooted down and branded as another example of her demonic nature.

At the end of the day, I say it appears to be an error. You say it is not. The good thing about it is that it makes no difference as far as salvation is concerned.

FinallyÖ

Lone says:
ìOf course, SDA's don't care as they have EGW who is just as authoritative as the Bible.î

WOW responds:
Come now Lone, if we are looking for truth lets not complicate the search by creating errors of our own. Such a statement is not true and is misleading.

Ellen White never claimed such a thing and the SDA Church does not teach such a thing. Furthermore, I do not believe such a thing - never have, never will.

WalkOnWater
TenBLoÿ@hotmail.com
Walkonwater
Registered user
Username: Walkonwater

Post Number: 108
Registered: 9-2006
Posted on Thursday, November 09, 2006 - 8:41 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Dear River,

I really appreciate your spirit and I am not offended in the least by your questions. The reason I got exasperated with Pheeki was that he took what I said and came up with exactly the opposite of what I had actually said.

That is not honest dialogue. I think Pheeki is smart enough to know that what he said was not what I was saying.

You asked about why I left the AOG Church. Actually, I was never a member there. There was much I loved there. (More than just a beautiful woman) (grin) I loved the singing and the spirit of enthusiasm and their emphasis on Jesus.

But I found their theology very shallow. To paraphrase Jim Cymbala of the Brooklyn Tabernacle, "There are churches which emphasize feelings and churches which emphasize intellect. What we need is churches that emphasize both heart and head, churches that emphasize both experience and sound doctrine."

AOG emphasized feelings but, I felt the theology was weak.

I do not have time to go through your entire long list of questions but I will say this.

One reason I came back to the SDA Church was because after attending many non SDA Churches and studying their theology, I finally came to a conclusion about SDA theology.

C. S. Lewis in ìMere Christianityî once said something like, ìAll religions are trying to answer the question, "What is 2+2?". Not a single religion comes up with 4 as the answer. But some religions come closer than others.

I would say the same for the Adventist Church. When asked what 2+2 is, the SDA Church fails to give the correct answer. In fact it is far from the correct answer. But I believe it is closer than anyone else. (Should I duck now or later?)

To take liberties with Winston Churchill, Iíd say Adventism is the worst theology out there except for all the other theologies.

That is an important reason I rejoined the Church.

Okay, you can let the attack begin.

WalkOnWater
TenBLoÿ@hotmail.com
U2bsda
Registered user
Username: U2bsda

Post Number: 326
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Thursday, November 09, 2006 - 9:02 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jeremy,

I agree with you. The Greek/English Interlinear New Testament shows the direct translation as "censer". It is a little hard to read because it is a direct translation and the syntax of the Greek is quite different, but I find it useful in situations like this.

Hebrews 9 | "eicen <2192> (5707) {HAD} men <3303> {INDEED} oun <3767> {THEREFORE} kai <2532> {ALSO} h <3588> {THE} prwth <4413> {FIRST} skhnh <4633> {TABERNACLE} dikaiwmata <1345> {ORDINANCES} latreiaV <2999> {OF SERVICE,} to <3588> te <5037> {AND THE} agion <39> {SANCTUARY,} kosmikon <2886> {A WORLDLY [ONE]} 2 skhnh <4633> gar <1063> {FOR A TABERNACLE} kateskeuasqh <2680> (5681) {WAS PREPARED,} h <3588> {THE} prwth <4413> {FIRST,} en <1722> {IN} h <3739> {WHICH [WERE]} h <3588> te <5037> {BOTH THE} lucnia <3087> {LAMPSTAND} kai <2532> {AND} h <3588> {THE} trapeza <5132> {TABLE} kai <2532> {AND} h <3588> {THE} proqesiV <4286> {PRESENTATION} twn <3588> {OF THE} artwn <740> {LOAVES,} htiV <3748> {WHICH} legetai <3004> (5743) {IS CALLED} agia <39> {HOLY;} 3 meta <3326> {AFTER} de <1161> {BUT} to <3588> {THE} deuteron <1208> {SECOND} katapetasma <2665> {VEIL} skhnh <4633> {A TABERNACLE} h <3588> {WHICH} legomenh <3004> (5746) {[IS] CALLED} agia <39> {HOLY} agiwn <39> {OF HOLIES,} 4 crusoun <5552> {A GOLDEN} ecousa <2192> (5723) {HAVING} qumiathrion <2369> {CENSER,} kai <2532> {AND} thn <3588> {THE} kibwton <2787> {ARK} thV <3588> {OF THE} diaqhkhV <1242> {COVENANT,} perikekalummenhn <4028> (5772) {HAVING BEEN COVERED ROUND} pantoqen <3840> {IN EVERY PART} crusiw <5553> {WITH GOLD,} en <1722> {IN} h <3739> {WHICH} stamnoV <4713> {[WAS THE] POT} crush <5552> {GOLDEN} ecousa <2192> (5723) {HAVING} to <3588> {THE} manna <3131> {MANNA,} kai <2532> {AND} h <3588> {THE} rabdoV <4464> {ROD} aarwn <2> {OF AARON} h <3588> {THAT} blasthsasa <985> (5660) {SPROUTED,} kai <2532> {AND} ai <3588> {THE} plakeV <4109> {TABLETS} thV <3588> {OF THE} diaqhkhV <1242> {COVENANT;} 5 uperanw <5231> de <1161> {AND ABOVE} authV <846> {IT [THE]} ceroubim <5502> {CHERABIM} doxhV <1391> {OF GLORY} kataskiazonta <2683> (5723) {EVERSHADOWING} to <3588> {THE} ilasthrion <2435> {MERCY SEAT;} peri <4012> {CONCERNING} wn <3739> {WHICH} ouk <3756> {NOT [THE TIME]} estin <2076> (5748) {IT IS} nun <3568> {NOW} legein <3004> (5721) {TO SPEAK} kata <2596> meroV <3313> {IN DETAIL.}"

The errors perceived in the Bible are only errors in human perception or possibly error in translation from the original. The original words are infallible. If I see an apparent contradiction in the Bible I can either look at it as though the Bible is fallible or my understanding of it is. Based on texts like 2 Timothy 3:16 "Every Scripture is God-breathed (given by His inspiration) and profitable for instruction, for reproof and conviction of sin, for correction of error and discipline in obedience, [and] for training in righteousness (in holy living, in conformity to God's will in thought, purpose, and action)," I trust that it is my understanding that is fallible instead of the Bible. If we can only depend on part of the Bible, how can we depend on any of it?
Flyinglady
Registered user
Username: Flyinglady

Post Number: 3006
Registered: 3-2004


Posted on Thursday, November 09, 2006 - 9:06 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Walk,
I believe that God has each of us where He wants us, for His purposes. I do not know what His purposes are, as only He knows. God has some lessons or something for you to learn, so He took you back to the SDA church. That does not happen to many people. So I will pray that whatever God's purpose is for you will be fulfilled.
Praying that our awesome God will hold you in His hands.
Diana
Walkonwater
Registered user
Username: Walkonwater

Post Number: 109
Registered: 9-2006
Posted on Thursday, November 09, 2006 - 9:55 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Thank you Diana:
I truly appreciate your kind words.

Wasn't it Isaiah who was told to go into the desert and remain naked for several years. I am so glad He did not ask me to do that! I'm afraid I'd frighten the jack rabbits. (LOL)

What is important is to follow no matter where He leads. I imagine Daniel never dreamed that following God would involve being thrown into a lion's den. Joseph never dreamed of the well and the slavery and the prison. Noah never dreamed he would be only 1 of 8 left to repopulate the earth.

God's ways are not our ways. We do not know where He will lead. And we must all be careful in judging others by thinking God would never lead them to the place they are in.

Diana, I've got a deal for you. I will pray for you if you will pray for me. Okay?

Blessing on you,

WalkOnWater
TenBLoÿ@hotmail.com
Agapetos
Registered user
Username: Agapetos

Post Number: 513
Registered: 10-2002


Posted on Thursday, November 09, 2006 - 10:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Walk,

Where does it say the 10C needed to be sprinkled with blood?

What did you make of the texts that came attached to question #2?

Blessings in Jesus,
Ramone
Agapetos
Registered user
Username: Agapetos

Post Number: 515
Registered: 10-2002


Posted on Friday, November 10, 2006 - 1:13 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hebrews 9:1-4 -

"Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary.... the Most Holy Place ... the gold-covered ark of the covenant ... the stone tablets of the covenant."

Exodus 34:28 -

"Moses was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And He wrote on the tablets the words of the covenantÅEthe Ten Commandments."

Deuteronomy 4:13 -

"He declared to you His covenant, the Ten Commandments, which He commanded you to follow and then wrote them on two stone tablets."

*****

The "sprinklings" of blood don't make something part of the covenant or not... rather, the sprinklings *put the covenant into effect*. We read this clearly in Exodus 24:8 -

"Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, 'This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words.'"

Note:

1) The blood itself is part of the covenant.
2) The tabernacle, ark, holy places & items had not been made when Moses did this.
3) Rather, the covenant was an agreement made between God and Israel in accordance with all the words He had spoken to them...

We see Moses identifying the covenant and maybe kind of "brokering" it (in a sense) here. Where did the "covenant" part of God's discourse begin? Look at Exodus 19:5 -

"Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession."

This is before Exodus 20 and the Ten Commandments. And then in Exodus 24, the covenant is summarized as "all these words" -- in other words, everything between chapters 19 and 24, including chapter 20. As the verses cited above would say, ESPECIALLY chapter 20!

In case we're not clear, Deuteronomy 5 restates the Ten Commandments. But just before it restates them, Moses said:

"The LORD our God made a covenant with us at Horeb (Sinai). It was not with our fathers that the LORD made this covenant, but with us, with all of us who are alive here today. The LORD spoke to you face to face out of the fire on the mountain..."

He then begins restating the Ten Commandments.

What this basically shows is that the Ten Commandments ARE indeed part of the (Old) covenant, even being called the very WORDS of the covenant (Ex.34:28).

*****

Can you see the significance of Moses breaking the tablets when he came down the mountain?

The Israelites were worshiping a golden calf... they had broken the covenant already!

So Moses threw the tablets/words of the covenant on the ground, showing it was broken.

Blessings,
Ramone
Agapetos
Registered user
Username: Agapetos

Post Number: 516
Registered: 10-2002


Posted on Friday, November 10, 2006 - 5:34 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Walk,

Sorry about the formatting on the last post... I was at an internet cafe and couldn't make it more cleanly readable. Anyway, I hope you were able to read the texts.

It's a good starting point, noting that the Bible calls the Ten Commandments the (Old) Covenant. Nevermind the ramifications that it might have, nevermind (for now) what might've carried over into the New and what might not have. We'll look at that later.

Let me say that again:

As far as it is possible, let us set aside how this might affect what we do or do not do with "the law" down the road.

For now, here we see Scripture speaking very clearly: the Ten Commandments are the covenant God made with Israel at Sinai.

*****

On a personal note, Walk, I think I'll mention that I can very much identify with the ideas you've shared here and in other threads. They are very good ideas and do make plenty sense -- that is, they make plenty sense to me eight years ago before I began to read the Scriptures more, especially the few I've mentioned so far.

Some of the things you've mentioned (not all) have been things that I once thought and that I too would have argued & defended. But I had to re-examine everything after reading Scripture. When Scripture said something that didn't fit what I believed, I had to let Scripture re-lay my foundation. And it was not without pains.

It was a fearful thing at first, because I was very secure in what I believed -- that is, it made a lot of sense and I was very sure of it. But when Scripture said something so foundational ("10C = OC"), I had to go down that path, I had to walk in faith and see where it led.

All my life I had always begun with the pre-determined conclusion that the Old Covenant (OC) equaled "sacrifices only" (meaning sacrifices, ceremonies, rituals, etc.).

Scripture shockingly broke that idea of mine.

At that point I was faced with a choice: 1) I could maintain my pre-determined conclusion and search for alternate explanations to the straightforward wording of Scripture, or 2) I could set aside my pre-drawn conclusion and let Scripture explain itself.

Obviously I knew the Lord would not lead me into a path where "sinning" would be okay. But you know, somehow, as soon as I learned these things, I was afraid of that very thing! "Lord, if I really allow Scripture to say what it says, won't that mean I can sin and do this and this?" I had to trust Him that He wouldn't let me do anything terrible. The 10C had been my crutch, my insurance. But now He was saying the 10C were a covenant (or rather, He'd been saying it for thousands of years, but I'd only just heard Him).

So... "Okay, Lord, I trust You. Show me what the 10C means to You. I thought I knew all about it, I thought I knew what the covenant was, but this is new, Lord. Re-lay my foundation. I put myself into Your hands and trust You to keep me from falling."

*****

May I suggest that we possibly agree that the Scripture does seem to clearly say the Ten Commandments are indeed the Sinaitic Covenant?

Please pray about it. It is a point where we embark on a journey. But in order to embark on the journey, we have to let go of worrying about what ramifications it might have. The ramifications we must prayerfully leave in God's hands, trusting Him to be more than sufficient to keep us from falling.

Awaiting your reply in Christ's love,
Ramone
Susans
Registered user
Username: Susans

Post Number: 107
Registered: 8-2006
Posted on Friday, November 10, 2006 - 6:16 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Walk,

The reason it's interesting you haven't seen where the 10 commandments were sprinkled with blood was probably the most interesting to me as well when I started really studying the covenants. The 10 commandments were part of the entire law that God gave to Moses on Mt. Sinai. If you begin reading at Exodus 20 and continue on to the end of Exodus 23 God was continuing to give Moses the Law, not just the 10 commandments.

In Exodus 24 God tells Moses to call Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and 70 of the elders of Israel to worship him from afar (remember the children of Israel couldn't take God's presence and wanted to be away from Him, to which He sent them away back to their tents, see Deut 5:22-30.

I am using the English Standard Version at the moment, but you can see in your version where in Exodus 24, Moses came and told the people ALL THE WORDS OF THE LORD AND ALL THE RULES (everything he had just been instructed on Mt. Sinai). The the people answered with one voice and said "All the Lord has spoken we will do". And Moses wrote down all the words of the Lord. (in a book, the Book of the Covenant)

So Moses got up early the next morning, built an altar with 12 pillars for the 12 tribes, and he sent young men who offered burnt offerings and sacrificed peace offerings to God.

This is the part that was of interest to me: "Moses took half the blood and put it in the basins and half the blood he threw against the altar. Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it in the hearing of the people. And they said "All that the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient". And Moses took the blood and threw it on the people and said "Behold the blood of the covenant the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words".

So God had made a covenant with the children of Israel that He had spoken to Moses from Exodus 20-24 and then that covenant had been ratified with blood. That covenant included the 10 commandments, Walk. When I realized that, I could see that the 10 commandments were part of the Law for the Jewish people. Remember Moses said God had not made this covenant with their fathers, but with THOSE WHO WERE STANDING THERE.

Now, let's read a little further into Exodus 24. God told Moses to come up on the mountain, and wait there, that I may give you TABLETS OF STONE, with the law and the commandment, which I have written for their instruction. (The tablets of stone were part of the same thing God had told Moses, he had told the people, and then wrote in the Bood of the covenant). Moses went up and was there for 40 days and 40 nights.

That was the days that my eyes were opened. The 10 commandments were part and parcel of the Law of Moses, the Law that God had given him on Mt Sinai for the children of Israel. So I began my journey almost 8 years ago.

Susan
Agapetos
Registered user
Username: Agapetos

Post Number: 517
Registered: 10-2002


Posted on Friday, November 10, 2006 - 6:25 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

(Sorry for the fourth post, but Walk, I just wanted to clarify: I'm awaiting your reaction to the Scriptures which say "10C = OC", that the 10C is the "first will" ... Let's not look too far ahead, but start with that.)
Susans
Registered user
Username: Susans

Post Number: 108
Registered: 8-2006
Posted on Friday, November 10, 2006 - 6:33 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Sorry, Ramone, I had not read your posts before writing this. However, I believe we have come to the same conclusion by the Scripture. I too, believed that the 10 commandments were separate and not included in the Old Covenant, which was only sacrifices and rituals according to worship. When I saw the covenant ratified at Sinai included those 10, I had to do lots of praying, scripture reading and comparing what I BELIEVED with what was WRITTEN.

Susan
River
Registered user
Username: River

Post Number: 88
Registered: 9-2006
Posted on Friday, November 10, 2006 - 6:46 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Walk,
No attack is forth coming dear sir; if you say God placed you there then who am I to contend with you or him?
You wrote: C. S. Lewis in ìMere Christianityî once said something like, ìAll religions are trying to answer the question, "What is 2+2?". Not a single religion comes up with 4 as the answer. But some religions come closer than others.
I agree with C.S. Lewis wholeheartedly. See now there we can agree on something if you think what Mr. Lewis says is correct. My assumption is that it is yes since you quoted him in a positive manner.
You wrote: To take liberties with Winston Churchill, Iíd say Adventism is the worst theology out there except for all the other theologies.
1. In an accredited Evangelical seminary, Adventist theology in itself doesnít even rate discussion as one of the world religions, not protestant, not catholic, as cults in general are usually not explored, that is to say ìNot part of the curriculumî. Cults are discussed but Adventism is not usually singled out except as another lump.
I suppose the reason why I am here with you today is that I have few Adventist friends about 15 or 20 of them, I am too tired to count them this morning, some close and some not so close but nevertheless, friends, they seem to think a lot of me and I know I like think a lot of them as fellow human beings you understand and I donít intend to get into a theological spit ball throw with them.
Last week I was ask by one of those Adventist friends to take over his religious duties while he was on vacation. Imagine that, him asking this old Pentecostal, I agreed to do it because he is my friend, not because of his theology.
It did cause me to examine myself, was I being a hypocrite? What about the law of love in Christ Jesus? Should I have turned a tired friend down because of theological differences? Where can the law of love in Christ Jesus take us? Is it always down familiar and comfortable road? Or does it sometimes get foggy or down right rocky.
The first thing that I did, when I began to examine myself is what I always do, my mental computer begins scanning for bible text, did you know we think at the rate of 1300 to 1500 words per minute? The only scripture I could come up with is the situation where Jesus turned the water into wine. Why did he do it? They were out of wine, did they really and truly need more of the stuff? I doubt it. Did I justify my action with that scripture? Not by a long shot.
Am I being a hypocrite by refusing to get into a theological spit fight with these Adventist? I do believe their theology is wrong as all ìgit outî.
Yes, I do look to that ìinner voiceî for guidance at times and sometimes I tend to think the Lord does not speak simply because he knows I am going to answer my own question anyway, he knows I wonít let go until I get a suitable answer.
I like to discuss Bible theology and why shouldnít I? The Bible becomes more real to me every day, not more distant.
So if perchance we should walk this sometimes foggy, or rocky, or dusty theological road together for a spell, at least we will have walked together.
No walk, I am fresh out of personal attacks today; they seem to get harder and harder to come by but I can put some on backorder if you like.
River
Susans
Registered user
Username: Susans

Post Number: 112
Registered: 8-2006
Posted on Friday, November 10, 2006 - 8:05 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

In reading again your posts, Ramone, one thing does stand out to me, and I think I need to confirm it here. The covenant given to the children of Israel was ratified with blood, or the blood put the covenant into effect. This covenant was from Exodus 19-24. This is what Moses wrote in the Book of the Covenant, and what God wrote on the tablets (the 10 commandments).

This was BEFORE the instructions for the tabernacle and worship, sacrifices, etc was given to Moses. I think this is important for us all to note.

Susan
Loneviking
Registered user
Username: Loneviking

Post Number: 496
Registered: 7-2000
Posted on Friday, November 10, 2006 - 8:39 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Last week I was ask by one of those Adventist friends to take over his religious duties while he was on vacation. Imagine that, him asking this old Pentecostal, I agreed to do it because he is my friend, not because of his theology.
It did cause me to examine myself, was I being a hypocrite? What about the law of love in Christ Jesus? Should I have turned a tired friend down because of theological differences? Where can the law of love in Christ Jesus take us? Is it always down familiar and comfortable road? Or does it sometimes get foggy or down right rocky.
_________________________________________________
Amen!Well said. I keep getting roped into doing special music for the local church. In fact, I'm doing special music tomorrow, then the first week in December, and then around Christmas.
Anyway, I'm glad you can help your friend out. I will say that what you describe is very unusual, in my experience. I'm surprised that the local conference isn't having a fit!

Bill
Walkonwater
Registered user
Username: Walkonwater

Post Number: 110
Registered: 9-2006
Posted on Friday, November 10, 2006 - 8:53 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Praise God!

I think we now have a legitimate, rational, unemotional discussion going. What a breath of fresh air!!

I am continuing to study and as you can see in my original post on Question Two, I have included the 10 Commandments as part of the First Covenant.

I have no problem with that.

I have no burden to come up with a preprogrammed, prescripted answer to these questions. I am interested in the truth.

Having said that, I do not believe one can ever distill out ìPure Essence of Truthî and put it in a bottle and say, "See, I have TRUTH." Why not? Because I think truth can only fully be truth when it is not only accepted intellectually but is experienced as well.

In other words, truth is not fully truth until it is experienced in one's life. I fully believe there are many who cannot express the Truth with their words but are doing a magnificent job with their life.

Jesus is the only One who could honestly say, "My words are truth." That's because they were not simply words. They were HIS VERY LIFE. His words and life were in complete harmony.

With me, and perhaps this is true for you, my words are about 10 years ahead of my experience. I can spout out great truth (Some here might severely question that statement. LOL) but my actual life falls short of those words. With Jesus that was not the case.

His words WERE TRUTH. He and His words were ONE just as surely as He and His Father were One.

As for C. S. Lewis, his writings have played a critical part in my search for God. During College I discovered "Mere Christianity". What a God inspired book that was for me!

River, I know Adventism is not a world religion. It is a denomination falling under the umbrella of Christianity and then under the umbrella of Protestantism. When Lewis says all world religions are trying to answer the question what is 2+2, I see the same thing happening within denominations. Whether it be Baptist or AOG or Adventist or Former Adventist, we are all trying to figure out the same question, "What is 2+2."

And we ALL come up with the WRONG answer. But some are closer to 4 than others. To me that summarizes the search SO WELL! None of us have fully ARRIVED. Only Jesus answers the question perfectly. Jesus' life and words add up to a PERFECT FOUR.

The closer I come to Him the more perfectly I reflect His perfect 4. But this is not a matter of striving toward 4-ness. As I see Him more clearly, I reflect Him more perfectly. My effort does not go into becoming a perfect 4. My effort goes into ìlooking to Jesus, the Author and finisher of my faith.î As I do that, my focus of attention becomes more and more of Him and less and less of me as He works in me both to will and do of His good pleasure.

In other words, I am finding that we primarily answer the 2+2 question with our lives. The words are only a poor backup.

Who was the one who said, "Preach the gospel, always preach the gospel. Preach the gospel even if you have to occasionally use words."

What a true statement. What a challenging statement!

WalkOnWater
TenBLoÿ@hotmail.com



Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker

Post Number: 4933
Registered: 12-2003


Posted on Friday, November 10, 2006 - 10:04 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

There's still an open question on the board of whether or not the Bible is inerrantóand this question determines whether we can even have a real discussion.

Raven said it well: the claim for inerrancy is only made for the original languagesóthe "altar"/"Censer" issue demonstrates this fact. But if we don't take the Bible's own words and claims of inerrancy as truth, then we have already thrown out the Bible as a firm foundation. Interestingly, when we decide to evaluate the Bible's inerrancy based on its own claim, it begins to fit together completely.

As for the SDA church never making the claim that EGW is as authoritative as the Bibleówell, we both know that in actuality, they do. Just last November Jud Lake from Southern University, Jon Paulien from Andrews Seminary, George Knight from Andrews, and Craig Newborn from the White Estate gave a weekend "summit" meeting regarding Ellen White in Gladstone, OR. At this moment I don't remember which of these SDA leaders made this comparison, but here's what was said:

Ellen White is inspired exactly as were the Bible writers. God used the same methods for both and inspired them all equally. But the PURPOSE of Ellen's writings was never to be canonical. The PURPOSE of her writings was to be a lesser light pointing to the greater light. So, she is not considered to be on an equal plane with the Bible.

So, here's the obfuscation: Her "INSPIRATION" was equal to the Bible writers; her writings are not equal to the Bible because they were not SUPPOSED to be.

Do you not see how convoluted and illogical this reasoning is? If she is inspired exactly as the Bible writers were inspiredóif she was sent from God to be a messenger for His church, then OF COURSE her writings must be considered equally authoritative. But noóthe church sets up a straw-man argument to make a public claim (her opus is not equal to the Bible) that contradicts their essential claim for her: she was inspired exactly as were the Bible writers.

This argument is fallacious and doesn't hold water. And in fact, Walk, the church validates its arguments about Ellen by trying to show that the Bible itself disagrees with itselfójust like Ellen!

I don't have to explain how false this argument isóbut I can say this: if one decides to take God at His word and read the Bible as a cohesive, inerrant whole, it makes more and more sense on deeper and deeper levels. There is absolutely no need to try to juggle Paul with Jesus or Johnóor the law with Jesus Himselfóthe Bible itself is completely unambiguous.

Colleen
River
Registered user
Username: River

Post Number: 89
Registered: 9-2006
Posted on Friday, November 10, 2006 - 10:16 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I see the 10 cís as a separate entity from the covenant, the law of the 10 cís was and is an enforced law, the covenant of blood sacrifices was for the ones breaking those laws, the 10 cís and for temporary measures until the final and true lamb should be sacrificed. If the Jews had followed those 10 cís perfectly, there would have been no need for sacrifice to be made. But they didnít and we didnít, so the blood of bulls and goats covenant was put in place. The finger of God wrote those commandments ìthou shall and thou shall notî.
The 10 cís are beautiful and perfect in their simplicity, they cover every sin known to man.
God furnished the sacrifice in the beginning, (Gen 3:21 KJV) Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
Yet here we have the people doing the killing of bull and goats, the people had to furnish their own sacrifice. I think to get the 10 cís mixed up with the covenants is a mistake. The fall had already taken place; did God know that the commandments would not be kept?
Logic would tell me that he did. The ten cís spell out the forbidden fruit for ìif ye eat of it ye shall dieî the school master to show us need of the savior.
They stand alone, timeless against all disobedience, unchangeable, they show us the very nature of God, if any abided by them perfectly you would view a perfect man, and we behold that man Christ Jesus.
A covenant is a contract, treaty, pledge, a command is a specific order.
A type of the 10 cís is seen in Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. You see God giving specific direction.
The ten commandments represent the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Again we see God giving specific direction.
The covenants have to do with the command not the command the covenant. God is not making a treaty, contract or agreement in the 10 cís, notice the different concepts in the two wordís.
Command- authority, order, control, directive. Requires only one commander.
Covenant-agreement, contract, treaty. Requires two partys.
So the 10 cís stand alone and the covenant with the people stands before them in agreement that they are just.
Now then, substitute 10 cís and we have Jesus standing alone in all his Glory and we have entered into a new covenant and again declared that he is just.
Just food for thought me laddies.
Esther
Registered user
Username: Esther

Post Number: 360
Registered: 5-2004
Posted on Friday, November 10, 2006 - 1:17 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I used to wonder this too River, but the reality is that the Bible never talks about them in distinction from the entire covenant. Among a host of other verses, Paul then goes on to make sure we are clear on this point:

2 Corinthians 3:4-18

2Co 3:4 Such confidence we have through Christ toward God.
2Co 3:5 Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God,
2Co 3:6 who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
2Co 3:7 But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was,
2Co 3:8 how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory?
2Co 3:9 For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory.
2Co 3:10 For indeed what had glory, in this case has no glory because of the glory that surpasses it.
2Co 3:11 For if that which fades away was with glory, much more that which remains is in glory.
2Co 3:12 Therefore having such a hope, we use great boldness in our speech,
2Co 3:13 and are not like Moses, who used to put a veil over his face so that the sons of Israel would not look intently at the end of what was fading away.
2Co 3:14 But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ.
2Co 3:15 But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart;
2Co 3:16 but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.
2Co 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
2Co 3:18 But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.

Paul describes a new covenant, not of the letter, but of the spirit...
the letter - kills
the Spirit - gives life

the letter - ministry of death engraved on stones (10c's)
the Spirit - ministry of righteousness

just my 2 cents
Timmy
Registered user
Username: Timmy

Post Number: 125
Registered: 8-2006


Posted on Friday, November 10, 2006 - 1:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Quote:

---------------------
Lone says:
ìOf course, SDA's don't care as they have EGW who is just as authoritative as the Bible.î

WOW responds:
Come now Lone, if we are looking for truth lets not complicate the search by creating errors of our own. Such a statement is not true and is misleading.

Ellen White never claimed such a thing and the SDA Church does not teach such a thing. Furthermore, I do not believe such a thing - never have, never will.
--------------------------

To hear an 'SDA' say he doesn't believe EGW to be as authoritive as the Bible, never has and never will, is a real shocker to me. In my little corner of the Adventist world I spent over 30 years with people who practice, and practice with pride, the details outlined by EGW.

I do not have any egw quotes to throw out, but I can say that in PRACTICE, like theological debates (in church as well as out), and in day to day life/diet, the writings of the prophet are as or even more important than the Bible...

To say 'the SDA church does not teach such a thing' is simply not true, at least based on my experience.

(Here is one tiny example: About a month ago, an old SDA friend, still SDA, was told by the pastor, "If you want your name to remain on the SDA books, you will remove your necklace." Bible? No. EGW? Yes.)

Tim
Grace_alone
Registered user
Username: Grace_alone

Post Number: 301
Registered: 6-2006


Posted on Friday, November 10, 2006 - 3:42 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

My fil has almost every book EGW ever wrote. Not only that, but he has several copies of her volumes. He's constantly rattling off her writings, and even recieves 1844 newsletters. My Bil's are the same way and one even runs a traveling sanctuary and preaches the IJ wherever he goes.

You can't tell me SDA's don't care, or don't hold her as authoritative as the Bible. In fact, I believe this is the whole reason for the disagreement in this thread.

Leigh Anne

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration