advindicate

Open full view…

Judas and the Sons of Eli — ADvindicate

Mon, 28 Jul 2014 04:46:31 GMT

George Evans
Sat, 16 Aug 2014 08:42:07 GMT

Kenneth wrote, >The only small problem with this is that they don't all say that. To support your claim you post an Ellen White comment penned in 1875 from the time when she was supporting Paul. Kenneth, listen closely. *After* *1890* she consistently maintains that both were deceived, and she never says that before 1884. Please apply your substantial reasoning skills to the task of figuring out what will refute this conclusion. A statement from 1875 saying only Eve and not Adam, won't cut it. >What you need to be looking for is a statement from EGW that contradicts the idea/biblical truth that Adam's fall from grace was not brought about by deception. What you need to do is stop talking and listen. There are 19 such statements that say they were both deceived in the fall, all after 1884.

Arik Warwick
Sat, 16 Aug 2014 10:46:55 GMT

> @georgethe54th > To support your claim you post an Ellen White comment penned in 1875 from the time when she was supporting Paul. Kenneth, listen closely. After 1890 she consistently maintains that both were deceived, and she never says that before 1884. Please apply your substantial reasoning skills to the task of figuring out what will refute this conclusion. A statement from 1875 saying only Eve and not Adam, won't cut it. I would have to ask you to do the same George, to apply your "substantial reasoning skills" but as of yet you have not demonstrated any. I am not being pejorative by any means, its just that you have strange ideas that despite being shown the better way, you hold on to them. In this matter you are trying to prove that EGW contradicted herself, a rather futile attempt, because you have not considered context of her statements! This is a very common error of those outside the SDA church, however within the church it should not be. To say the least all SDA's should have the correct view of inspiration and authority and how it all works. At the m ost we should always carefully take context into consideration. "_Adam was not deceived by the serpent, *as* *was* *Eve*, and it was inexcusable in Adam to rashly transgress God’s positive command. Adam was presumptuous because his wife had sinned. He could not see what would become of Eve. He was sad, troubled, and tempted. He listened to Eve’s recital of the words of the serpent, and his constancy and integrity began to waver. Doubts arose in his mind in regard to whether God did mean just as He said. He rashly ate the tempting fruit."_{CON 86.1} _"Eve yielded to temptation, and *through* *her* *influence* *Adam* *also* *was* *deceived*. They accepted the words of the serpent, that God did not mean what he said; they distrusted their Creator, and imagined that he was restricting their liberty, and that they might obtain great light and freedom by transgressing his law._" {4SP 352.1} _"They now began to see the true character of sin. Adam reproached his companion for leaving his side and permitting herself to be deceived by the serpent. But they both flattered themselves that He who had given them so many evidences of His love would pardon this one transgression; they would not be subjected to so dire a punishment as they had feared.{EP 26.2} Satan exulted. He had tempted the woman to distrust God’s love, to doubt His wisdom, and to transgress His law; and *through* *her* *he* *had* *caused* *the* *overthrow* *of* *Adam!"*_{EP 26.3} Shame on you George, you possibly could be sowing doubt in the minds of other people!

Ronald G. White
Sat, 16 Aug 2014 15:39:31 GMT

> @kennethneal > I don't think you have actually presented any arguments to support your basic claim (that illogical arguments exist in the Word)... That wasn't my basic claim. My basic claim is that Ellen White's comments IMPLY the existence of some kind of logical deficiencies in the text of Scripture. There is no burden on me to show that any actually exist, nor do I care to go there in such an evidently hostile discussion climate. No one has been able to answer that point. Rather, my argument is simply ignored, while caricatures and pejorative labels have been applied -- and I'm supposed to be impressed?

defunct account
Sat, 16 Aug 2014 16:01:35 GMT

> @rgw1957 > My basic claim is that Ellen White's comments IMPLY the existence of some kind of logical deficiencies in the text of Scripture. And I have answered that claim by giving an example that clearly illustrates that what you are claiming is not accurate because logic allows for but does not necessitate what you are suggesting. If logic only allows for, without necessitating, then there is, necessarily, logically, absolutely no implication. I have also answered your point by asking you to demonstrate the logical steps that lead to the implication you are suggesting. You have not done that. If I were going to suggest as you have, I would lead such a suggestion with my best logical argument.

Arik Warwick
Sat, 16 Aug 2014 16:20:01 GMT

> @rgw1957 > My basic claim is that Ellen White's comments IMPLY the existence of some kind of logical deficiencies in the text of Scripture. And to me the implication is that the "logical deficiencies" only exist to those that are unconsecrated. In fact, if there are logical deficiencies in Scripture, who gets to say what they are? Isn't logic subjective? In reality I think we should not read anymore into her comments than ehat is there. Mainly the argument is that those who do not want to believe will be able to use Scripture to continue their unbelief, and God will not stop them. Those that will die to self will have the Scriptures speak to their very souls, and will go way beyond the mere words of Scripture. Logic is not the test of truth, at least not logic according to our corrupt minds.

George Evans
Sat, 16 Aug 2014 19:13:53 GMT

Arik wrote, >Both Adam and Eve were deceived, but Adam was not directly deceived by the serpent like Eve was. It sounds like you are saying it was actually the serpent deceiving Eve. Is that right? To my thinking Satan deceived each of them through a different medium. >To me it is clear that Adam was more self deceived... Are you saying Adam already had flesh that was corrupt? Maybe you need to experiencing the enlightenment that Ellen White in the late 1880's.

collins
Sat, 16 Aug 2014 20:12:18 GMT

"My basic claim is that Ellen White's comments IMPLY the existence of some kind of logical deficiencies in the text of Scripture." -Ronald G. White It is that very claim that is inaccurate, Ron. It is twisting her words.

defunct account
Sat, 16 Aug 2014 20:58:51 GMT

> @georgethe54th > After 1890 she consistently maintains that both were deceived Not in any way that contradicts anything she said before 1890. Your problem, George, is that you are seeing what you want to see. Adam was deceived, and EGW states that, yes. She states it before 1890, check your records. This being the case, we have her, before 1890 saying that Adam was not deceived and saying that Adam was deceived. How can this be? Mystery of mysteries! Cue the ominous sounding music! She must have "backed away from Paul" even before she "backed away from Paul." Or, maybe, just maybe, she means something a little bit different with each of these seemingly contradictory statements. The simple Bible truth, which is very clearly expanded upon in the SoP, is that Eve fell thinking she was rising, whereas Adam knew he was falling when he ate the fruit, regardless of how he may have been otherwise deceived and misguidedly hoping for the best. George, when you stop with this artificial distinction between pre 1890 and post 1890, and ask God to help you figure out how the Lord's Messenger could say, from the beginning, that Adam was both deceived and not deceived, you will find freedom from your denying of God's Word.

Arik Warwick
Sat, 16 Aug 2014 22:52:54 GMT

Well said Kenneth! Context for EGW's writings does wonders!

George Evans
Sun, 17 Aug 2014 04:00:23 GMT

Kenneth wrote, >What will be beneficial for our interpretations is for us to realize that where we see logical problems in God's Word, we are mistaken and need to beg more earnestly for His help in teaching us what the Spirit was moving the Bible writer to write and what He wants us to understand. It would be entertaining to watch you apply this principle to the place in the gospels where Matthew mixed up Zechariah with Jeremiah. Here's the passage, >Then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the value of Him who was priced, whom they of the children of Israel priced, and gave them for the potter’s field, as the LORD directed me," Matthew 27:9-10 The problem is that he was quoting from Zechariah 11:12-13. What do you suppose Matthew was trying to teach us?

George Evans
Sun, 17 Aug 2014 04:39:24 GMT

Arik wrote, >In this matter you are trying to prove that EGW contradicted herself... Why is it contradiction when a person learns something new and change an opinion? Isn't Ellen White allowed that freedom? In Con 86.1 we can see the seeds of thought that will blossom in a decade. For now she describes Adam's thoughts when seeing Eve as, "He listened to Eve’s recital of the words of the serpent, and his constancy and integrity began to waver. Doubts arose in his mind in regard to whether God did mean just as He said." If I had to hazard a guess I would say that Ellen White had not yet considered as deeply as possible the avenues of intimacy being exploited by Satan and later expanded on in _Patriarchs and Prophets_. But even in 1875, she is getting close to seeing this as deception comparable to what the "serpent" did to Eve. When she writes in 1884 in 4SP 352, "and through her influence Adam also was deceived," it is the first time she acknowledges that Adam was also deceived. This begins her transitional phase. EP 26.3 is a revision of _Patriarchs and Peophets_ whic h ends the transition phase. From there on it's 19 straight statements, over 25 years, saying both Adam and Eve were deceived.

George Evans
Sun, 17 Aug 2014 04:44:15 GMT

Kenneth wrote, >Adam was deceived, and EGW states that, yes. She states it before 1890, check your records. She does not say that before 1884 though. That's 14 comments covering forty years in which Adams is never said to be deceived, just like Paul says. >Or, maybe, just maybe, she means something a little bit different with each of these seemingly contradictory statements. Whatever "little bit different" thing she was saying during the transitional years of 1884 to 1890, she quit saying after that. >The simple Bible truth, which is very clearly expanded upon in the SoP, is that Eve fell thinking she was rising, whereas Adam knew he was falling when he ate the fruit... What is clear is that you have Paul's mistaken idea that Eve was inferior, and Adam was smarter. You think women aren't as mentally and morally capable. This was precisely the idea that Ellen White moved away from after 1890.

Arik Warwick
Sun, 17 Aug 2014 11:01:16 GMT

> @georgethe54th > Why is it contradiction when a person learns something new and change an opinion? Isn't Ellen White allowed that freedom? Change an opinion? Ellen White never wrote on this subject as her opinion! This is a ludacris idea given all she wrote about the dangers of opinions in light of the word of God, not to mention in several places she is clear that what she wrote was never her own ideas. Truth is George Adam and Eve both were deceived, albeit differently, we do not need the SOP to come to that conclusion. Scripture reveals that very nicely. The truth still remains that "Adam was NOT deceived, by the serpent, as was Eve." Con 86.1. This is not saying Adam was not deceived at all. Everyone who will be lost has been deceived in some way George. Your strange opinions that you hold onto so dearly above that of Scripture are blinding you from Truth. Being able to argue against truth does not make the truth less true. And now in your response to Kenneth you are bringing out an apparent contradiction in Scripture? _"Those who take only a surface view of the Scriptures will, with their superficial knowledge, which they think is very deep, talk of the contradictions of the Bible, and question the authority of the Scriptures. But those whose hearts are in harmony with truth and duty will search the Scriptures with a heart prepared to receive divine impressions. The illuminated soul sees a spiritual unity, one grand golden thread running through the whole, but it requires patience, thought, and prayer to trace out the precious golden thread. Sharp contentions over the Bible have led to investigation and revealed the precious jewels of truth. Many tears have been shed, many prayers offered, that the Lord would open the understanding to His Word.” SM 20_

Ronald G. White
Sun, 17 Aug 2014 15:55:11 GMT

> @kennethneal > If logic only allows for, without necessitating, then there is, necessarily, logically, absolutely no implication. This is true, However, I cannot recall your demonstrating the absence of necessity here. Would you mind repeating that example?

Phil Mills, Sr
Sun, 17 Aug 2014 16:18:57 GMT

> @georgethe54th > the place in the gospels where Matthew mixed up Zechariah with Jeremiah. Let a prophet explain your problem (Arik quoted this as well): FLB 11 "Those who take only a surface view of the Scriptures will, with their superficial knowledge, which they think is very deep, talk of the contradictions of the Bible." There is someone mixed up, but it is not the inspired Matthew. Those who are interested could see a full examination of this quotation: http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=658 The author closes with the comment: "A superficial assessment of the surface tension between Matthew and Jeremiah fails to grasp the complexity and sophistication of the ultimate Mind behind Matthew’s handling of the sacred text. The one who assumes error on the part of Bible writers inevitably fails to probe the depths of inspired writ to discover the ingenuity and power that reside there."

Ronald G. White
Sun, 17 Aug 2014 19:34:09 GMT

To Kenneth Neal: I seem to recall that your "example" was the case of someone who MISTAKENLY THOUGHT that he or she was seeing some logical deficiency in the text of Scripture. I'll take that for what it's worth. However, I believe its utility must be rather limited, for the following reasons: 1) If Ellen White had been addressing such a case (and if any such logical deficiencies in the Scriptures were an impossibility), I feel quite confident that she could have, and would have, found a more responsible way in which to respond. Why say that God is not on trial for logic in the Bible, when all she had to do is point out the comprehension or attitude problems of the person in question? 2) That was not the context of her statement. She cited logic as one of several linguistic factors over which God is not on trial in the Scriptures. Her whole point was that the Bible is not verbally inspired, and that it is therefore subject to human imperfection in its choice of wording, in the very languages which the writers were obliged to employ, and even in their use of logic. I may have stated the case a bit too strongly when I asserted that Ellen White's statement IMPLIES the existence of logical deficiencies in the text of Scripture. However, her words certainly do SUGGEST the possibility (nay, the probability) of such deficiencies. Any deficiencies in the application of logic are far from being the only factor militating against our natural desire for a perfect Bible. Beside the other limitations of the human writers themselves, and their use of language, there is the probability of copying errors affecting even today's best editions in the original languages -- a concept also explicitly endorsed by Ellen White. And then there are translation limitations and errors. Even with my rather limited training and exposure, I can confidently state that every single English translation of the Scriptures, which I have ever perused, most definitely contains translation errors -- and that includes the KJV. God certainly did protect and preserve the Scriptures for us, but not in a state of perfection. Apparently He wanted us to sense our need of the Holy Spirit's aid in interpreting the Bible, as well as our need of an honest, willing, obedient heart, as MORE VITALLY IMPORTANT in our understanding of His Word than any intellectual abilities which we may possess. If there is a kind of fundamentalist mentality among us, which NEEDS the Scriptures to be verbally inspired, then I suspect that it's high time that we changed our way of thinking.

defunct account
Sun, 17 Aug 2014 21:08:54 GMT

> @rgw1957 > I seem to recall that your “example” was the case of someone who MISTAKENLY THOUGHT that he or she was seeing some logical deficiency in the text of Scripture. No, that was not my "example." > @rgw1957 > Why say that God is not on trial for logic in the Bible, when all she had to do is point out the comprehension or attitude problems of the person in question? She did in fact point out the comprehension and attitude problems of those persons in question, and made it clear that their comprehension problems do not implicate the logic found in the Word. > @rgw1957 > That was not the context of her statement. That was precisely the context of her statement. Anyone who reads the paragraphs in question can clearly see the context is not one of suggesting logical errors are to be found in the Bible, but clearly one of showing the perverted logic of those who claim that God's Word is faulty. > @rgw1957 > Her whole point was that the Bible is not verbally inspired, and that it is therefore subject to human imperfection in its choice of wording, in the very languages which the writers were obliged to employ, and even in their use of logic. No. Her whole point was that men will find ways to distort God's Word. The question of verbal vs thought inspiration has no bearing on the matter of perverted interpretation. Men will pervert God's Word with equal enthusiasm whether they believe it is word or thought inspired. So, pointing out that it is thought inspired is not helpful in that sense. > @rgw1957 > I may have stated the case a bit too strongly when I asserted that Ellen White's statement IMPLIES the existence of logical deficiencies in the text of Scripture. However, her words certainly do SUGGEST the possibility (nay, the probability) of such deficiencies. You talk yourself right around in a circle here, don't you? If her words suggest a probability, then her words imply. Do you know what "imply" means? Do you understand basic logic? > @rgw1957 > This is true, However, I cannot recall your demonstrating the absence of necessity here. Would you mind repeating that example? Here is my example again, followed by related comments: >@rgw1957 >There has to be some kind of logical deficiency somewhere, in order for it to be necessary to point out that God is not on trial on that issue. No, there does not. That there must be some logical deficiency does not logically follow from a reality of God refraining from putting Himself on trial in the Bible. What you are suggesting is logically possible but not logically necessary. This is an elementary mistake in logic. Consider the following: my son draws a triangle based on my description to him. It's a perfect triangle. It still may be useful for me to point out that I have not put myself on trial in the eye-hand coordination, use of tools, or geometric understanding of my son. This statement does not demand (or even imply) that there is anything wrong with my son's triangle. In the case of the Bible and EGW's statement under discussion here, context is important in understanding the meaning of and reason for the statement. The context very clearly shows that the reason for the statement is that when men encounter difficult passages or when they want a certain result, they use their own faulty logic and apply their own perverted logic in order to criticize the Bible and the God of the Bible, or get out of it what they want. To twist EGW statement into meaning that the Bible must contain illogical arguments is truly an unfortunate irony of doing to her writing exactly what she was in these paragraphs condemning others of doing with both the Bible and her writings. Ronald, I believe you are badly misunderstanding the context and purpose of the statement in question here. However, even if I allow that you are correct in your assessment of the context and purpose of the statement, I am then faced with the problem that her statement does not, through any sound application of logic, imply what you are saying it implies. Her statement, at most, identifies the possibility. So, I am left with the fact that her statement does not even imply, much less state, what you are saying the entire context is designed to support. Houston, we have a problem!

Arik Warwick
Sun, 17 Aug 2014 21:29:12 GMT

> @kennethneal > That was precisely the context of her statement. Anyone who reads the paragraphs in question can clearly see the context is not one of suggesting logical errors are to be found in the Bible, but clearly one of showing the perverted logic of those who claim that God's Word is faulty. This is exactly how I see it too! The statement should not be puuled from it's context. The "logic" referred to is the perverted logic who take a "surface view of Scripture."

defunct account
Mon, 18 Aug 2014 01:38:31 GMT

> @georgethe54th > It would be entertaining to watch you apply this principle Bible study is not a matter of entertainment, George, it's a matter of life and death. > @georgethe54th > She does not say that before 1884 though. This is one of your central mistakes. You are being very superficial in your "exhaustive and very cautious study." She does say it long before that. You need to read her writings looking for the meaning behind words, not just looking for specific words like "Adam," and "deceived." She says it, you just don't see it. > @georgethe54th >That's 14 comments covering forty years in which Adams is never said to be deceived, just like Paul says. Again, no it isn't; see above. Also, even if what you are saying were true, it doesn't make the tiniest bit of difference, George. She says both at the same time. You need to find a way to make sense of this that doesn't make Paul and a younger EGW into a lair in one instance and a truth teller in another. > @georgethe54th > Whatever “little bit different” thing she was saying during the transitional years of 18 84 to 1890, she quit saying after that. Again, timing doesn't matter. She says both at the same time. That's the death knell for your theory. If your prognostications lead you to determine that Paul lied and EGW lied for 14 years before she finally figured out the truth and started sharing it with God's people, then my prognostications will lead me to say that what you are saying is a lie. God's Apostles and prophets don't lie when writing under the influence of the Holy Ghost. Men do lie though.

Ronald G. White
Mon, 18 Aug 2014 16:00:42 GMT

> @kennethneal > No. Her whole point was that men will find ways to distort God's Word. The question of verbal vs thought inspiration has no bearing on the matter of perverted interpretation. Men will pervert God's Word with equal enthusiasm whether they believe it is word or thought inspired. So, pointing out that it is thought inspired is not helpful in that sense. You have totally twisted things, apparently to suit your own ideas, which are not in harmony with those expressed by Ellen White. She was eminently a very practical person, even in what she wrote. To suggest that her points (such as the one that the Bible is not verbally inspired) are unhelpful is to set your judgment up over that of the Holy Spirit. As far as I am concerned, this is the end of our conversation on this point.

previous
next
last page