Ellen White a Prophet of God?

i take them all seriously.

Gen 2:2 And on the seventh7637 day3117 God430 ended3615 his work4399 which834 he had made;6213 and he rested7673 on the seventh7637 day3117 from all4480, 3605 his work4399 which834 he had made.6213
Gen 2:3 And God430 blessed1288 (853) the seventh7637 day,3117 and sanctified6942 it: because3588 that in it he had rested7673 from all4480, 3605 his work4399 which834 God430 created1254 and made.6213

Exo 20:8 Remember2142 the (853) sabbath7676 day,3117 to keep it holy.6942


again where is the word for sabbath (as in the weekly sabbath, it's not there, you should learn to read hebrew, and then you would not make silly mistakes like the one you just did.

since i cannot seem to get hebrew script to show up i will transliterate the 2 different words

SHAW-BATH'= to repose, or the desist

SHAB-BAWTH'= The Sabbath


you are clearly wrong, 84 more.

thankyou and God Bless

 

As "already stated" Shabath is in both Gen 2:2 and 2:3.

AS informative as a non-response like that is --

The point remains. The "rest" -- Shabath rest is mentioned in both Gen 2:2 and 2:3. The term Shabbath is derived from that rest of Gen 2:2 and 2:3.

As the Sabbath command points out ITS ORIGIN is in the Gen 2:2-3 fact "FOR IN SIX days God MADE... AND RESTED the 7th day THEREFORE the Lord BLESSED the Sabbath day and MADE it Holy".

It is impossible to ignore both the details IN the spoken imperative as they POINT to Gen 1-2:3 AND the details IN the text of Gen 2:2 - 2:3.

Though you seem to be trying "AS IF" you had something here.

Why not just do what God said -- He says to LOOK at the Gen 1-2:3 facts and SEE the Sabbath which IS in fact THE 7th day of Creation week. It is THE reason that the week of Gen 1-2:3 is SEVEN days and not 6!!

So Christ the creator is right when HE says that when HE made that day HE made it FOR MANKIND!

As I said - go to something that you take seriously or else admit that this point is the level of "serious" study you are doing into the details of what Christ the Creator has said about HIS OWN Holy Day.


(I get the sense that you may be going out on a limb taking that last option. Please Feel free to do it).

IT will be kinda fun pointing out how God SAYS the Gen 2:2-3 facts are establishing the day - while you deny it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Is that an exact quote of 1Cor 14 or a paraphrase??

While you're thinking about it --

Here is what "My bible" says --

Hmmm (God -- or Hardsheller... God or Hardsheller...)

Wait! don't help me figure this one out - I almost have it!

In Christ,

Bob

 

My response to your 1/85 may be causing some confusion since I did not number the points for that response -- here they are "numbered".

#1. There are no examples of anyone before the flood eating breakfast. (Your argument is out of the void of what the text does not say. But as the case with Breakfast and sleeping, and honoring parents are other things not listed in Genesis. Arguing frm the void will also leave you without Commands from God involving not taking the name of the Lord in vain and not coveting and Murder ...

the fact that these commands are not listed for Moses' readers until later does not mean that these sins were "ok" in Genesis)

#2. Moses speaks about "Clean and Unclean" animals in Gen 6 but does not tell us what that IS until Lev 11. (Your argument is from the void of what the text does not say. Moses assumes his READERS have access to both Genesis and Leviticus. They could not argue from the void as you are doing).

#3. Moses speaks of Cain and SIN in Gen 4 but does not show us the Law of God saying "Thou shalt not murder" until Exodus 20. (Your argument is from the void of what the text does not say. Moses assumes his READERS have access to both Genesis and Leviticus. They could not argue from the void as you are doing).


#4. The 5 books were all written by one man - and he wrote as though the reader had access to Genesis and Leviticus as well as the actual history of Exodus 20 that occured in Moses' generation.

(Your argument is from the void of what the text does not say. Moses assumes his READERS have access to both Genesis and Leviticus. They could not argue from the void as you are doing).


#5. This is all obvious. I can not believe that is a "doctrinal question". (Your argument is not the form of a doctrinal statement nor does it introduce any valid principle for evaluating doctrine as the list above has shown).

#6. Gen 2:3 DOES have the word for Sabbath rest AND DOES say that the 7th day was MADE a Holy Day. (Let us now start arguing the Gen 2:2-3 text from what IT DOES say rather than out of the void.)

The questions you aks simply misdirect to "ignores" this devastating fact of Genesis two and looks for "other words" as well.

The word SHABATH is found in Gen 2:2 and 2:3 for rest.

Is there a "Bible principle" in that kind of work in your 1/85??? IS that a "Doctrinal" view to dodge and evade the clear statement of scripture in Gen 2:3 that the day IS a Holy Day?

How in the world can that be a serious question "of yours"??

The question listed is not a form of exegesis -- at all!!

In Gen 2:3 Christ the Creator makes the day a Holy Day.

In Exodus 20:8-11 He says that the Gen 2:2-3 facts ALONE establish the day as SET APART and a to be honored. "Therefore HE BLESSED and HE SANCTIFIED".

(Gen 2:2-3 THEREFORE the Lord blessed the Sabbath day Exodus 20:11)

#7. Christ The Creator said that when HE made it HE made it "FOR mankind" Mark 2:27. (The MAKING of Christ the Creator's Holy day resulted in mankind having a SEVEN day week not a SIX day week)

The first of your 85 seems like a "squirm" effort to get away from what the Bible actually does say - by speculating about what it does NOT say.

You can't possibly be serious with that one.

</font>[/QUOTE]I notice that you did pick up on ONE out of the seven response points.

That was something at least.

Who knows - maybe you are serious about your first question. This will be interesting to see.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Here was my answer to your question #2 -- 2/85.

I will number the points in the response for you --

 

#1. There are no examples of anyone before the flood eating breakfast. (Your argument is out of the void of what the text does not say. But as the case with Breakfast and sleeping, and honoring parents are other things not listed in Genesis. Arguing frm the void will also leave you without Commands from God involving not taking the name of the Lord in vain and not coveting and Murder ...

again you are saying (from the absence of text) that they did, no such verse, and no hint ANYWHERE (in history or the ancient writtings of the Jews) that they did, who is agrueing FOR doctrine from absense of text.
the fact that these commands are not listed for Moses' readers until later does not mean that these sins were "ok" in Genesis)

never said they were

#2. Moses speaks about "Clean and Unclean" animals in Gen 6 but does not tell us what that IS until Lev 11. (Your argument is from the void of what the text does not say. Moses assumes his READERS have access to both Genesis and Leviticus. They could not argue from the void as you are doing).

again YOU ARE ASSUMING (and everyone knows what happen when you assume) that the clean and unclean animals are the same (which the jewish sages would disagree with)

#3. Moses speaks of Cain and SIN in Gen 4 but does not show us the Law of God saying "Thou shalt not murder" until Exodus 20. (Your argument is from the void of what the text does not say. Moses assumes his READERS have access to both Genesis and Leviticus. They could not argue from the void as you are doing).

and murdering a person is an "Uh-Duh" when it comes to sin, would you have to be told that murder is wrong (and your 5000+ years sin corrupted). yah Cain said murder is OK, or (like the test indicates) he knew right from wrong, and he had done wrong.


#4. The 5 books were all written by one man - and he wrote as though the reader had access to Genesis and Leviticus as well as the actual history of Exodus 20 that occured in Moses' generation.

Your argument is from the void of what the text does not say. Moses assumes his READERS have access to both Genesis and Leviticus. They could not argue from the void as you are doing).

yes moses did write the 5 books (though some (i'm not dogmatic about this though as the bible say nowhere that it happened)would say Joshua wrote some of Duet.)could you please tell me how you know that Moses assumes this...how far apart were the books written, who were moses' readers. since no record of paleo-hebrew exists before Moses, what language did God us use convey this info.


#5. This is all obvious. I can not believe that is a "doctrinal question". (Your argument is not the form of a doctrinal statement nor does it introduce any valid principle for evaluating doctrine as the list above has shown).

huh?

#6. Gen 2:3 DOES have the word for Sabbath rest AND DOES say that the 7th day was MADE a Holy Day. (Let us now start arguing the Gen 2:2-3 text from what IT DOES say rather than out of the void.)

The questions you aks simply misdirect to "ignores" this devastating fact of Genesis two and looks for "other words" as well.

The word SHABATH is found in Gen 2:2 and 2:3 for rest.

again you plainly do not read hebrew, sorry but please find one Jewish sage or hebrew scholar who agree's with you (non- baptist (me) and Non-SDA (you) just to be fair and unbiased)

Is there a "Bible principle" in that kind of work in your 1/85??? IS that a "Doctrinal" view to dodge and evade the clear statement of scripture in Gen 2:3 that the day IS a Holy Day?

Holy day not the sabbath, learn hebrew and you will understand, same root does not the same word make.

How in the world can that be a serious question "of yours"??


yes.

The question listed is not a form of exegesis -- at all!!

is the like your answer is not in the form of a question on Jeopardy?

In Gen 2:3 Christ the Creator makes the day a Holy Day.

not the Sabbath

In Exodus 20:8-11 He says that the Gen 2:2-3 facts ALONE establish the day as SET APART and a to be honored. "Therefore HE BLESSED and HE SANCTIFIED".

and ordered ADAM to keep it.......oh no that's not there, YOU JUST ASSUME IT.

(Gen 2:2-3 THEREFORE the Lord blessed the Sabbath day Exodus 20:11)

#7. Christ The Creator said that when HE made it HE made it "FOR mankind" Mark 2:27. (The MAKING of Christ the Creator's Holy day resulted in mankind having a SEVEN day week not a SIX day week)

nice out of context quote.

Mar 2:24 And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?
Mar 2:25 And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?
Mar 2:26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, WHICH IS NOT LAWFUL to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?
Mar 2:27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, AND NOT MAN FOR THE SABBATH:
Mar 2:28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.


The first of your 85 seems like a "squirm" effort to get away from what the Bible actually does say - by speculating about what it does NOT say.

and you (SDA'S) make laws based on what the bible does not say

You can't possibly be serious with that one.

yes i am

</font>[/QUOTE]I notice that you did pick up on ONE out of the seven response points.

check your pm's

That was something at least.

Who knows - maybe you are serious about your first question. This will be interesting to see.


Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Just to let you know this (debating your doctrine), is far better than debating an atheist, thank you for taking the time to do this with me, believe it or not i appreciate it.


thankyou and God Bless

 

Lets run with that idea that the 7th day of thw week is a "Holy Day not the Sabbath" for a minute.

The Genesis account gives very little information on Adam and Eve before the fall. We see nothing about them sleeping (aside from a kind of surgery), breakfast, lunch, dinner (aside from sinning)- planning their day, discovering new things, being honest, describing the joy of something found/done/discovered. Apart from sin - we have few details.

But we DO have the two institutions.

We know that they have the institution of Marriage because God quotes the language in Genesis 2 and applies it to Marriage. This they took with them from Eden.

We know that they had a 7 day week.

We know that their 7th-day - Holy Day given to them by Christ the Creator was established for them in Gen 2:2-3. And we know that is to THAT same language that God appeals in Exodus 20:8-11 saying that this SHABATH rest seen in GEn 2:2-3 "alone" establishes the solemnity of Christ the Creator's Shabbath. That it was specifically HIS act of Shabath REST that DEFINES how the Holy Day is to be kept. Shabath rest that is SEEN in Gen 2:2-3.

Today - we can see that the three main attacks of humanism are against those three basic gifts that Adam and Eve took with them.

1. Marriage is attacked - via cultural promotion of infidelity and the gay agenda even to the point of Getting some Christians to Join them.

2. The Literal 7 day week of Creation week is challenged by humanists, atheist to the point even of getting some Christians to join them.

3. The 7th day Holy Day of Christ the Creator made as a memorial of the Gen 1-2:3 "fact" is challenged not only by the evolutionists but by many Christians.

Christ our Creator said that His Holy day was "MADE for MANKIND" Mark 2:27 and yet we see it is mankind that is most enthusiastic about attacking it.

Blessings attacked and denied are blessings foreited.

These facts are undisputed.

The question is - what do we do with them? Ignore them?

In Christ,

Bob

 

In Exodus 20:8-11 He says that the Gen 2:2-3 facts ALONE establish the day as SET APART and a to be honored. "Therefore HE BLESSED and HE SANCTIFIED".

There is no basis in all of scripture for ignoring something that God states as sanctified and set apart (made a Holy Day in Gen 2 as even you admitted).

There is no indication in all of scripture that the week used to be known as 6 days.

The ONlY thing done/created on the 7th day in Gen 2 was the establishment of the Holy Day.

THE MAKING of that day and the MAKING of mankind are both referenced in Mark 2:27 and Christ said it is FOR mankind that it was MADe.

These are not "assumption" they are fact.

These Bible facts alone justify D.L Moody's statement on the Sabbath command of Christ the Creator..

Those who attack Adventists for holding to this same authorotative view about God's Word in Gen 2:2-3, and choosing to honor and respect Christ the Creator's Holy day as valid, binding and a blessing to mankind starting in Eden -- fail to comprehend the scope of how well these basic parts of the argument were accepted by Christians a short time ago.

In Christ,

Bob

 

You are welcome. Each opportunity given me to highlight the clear teaching in scripture on this is actually a joy for me.

And I agree with you that having a close look at scripture to see the details of what God has said is far more rewarding than debating with atheists over "who is smarter".

In Christ,

Bob

 

So also is following God's example and honoring what HE says He blessed and sanctified (set apart for Holy use). This is an "Uh Duh" in ALL of scripture.

There is no example of any precident for "Ignoring what God has sanctified".

The utltimate "Uh Duh" is honoring what God Sanctifies and "sets apart".

But then when He TELLS us that it was MADE FOR MANKIND --

Uh--Duh!!

 

The only point highlighted there is that HE made it and that HE MADE it FOR MANKIND.

Undisputed facts.

As I said - "Undisputed facts" pointed out above ... "remain".

Do you have a point?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Here I point out the consistency of scripture. Instead of "assuming" that each reference to "Clean/Unclean" by the SAME AUTHOR is "something undefined and brand new" from every OTHER mention of the SAME concept -- I hold to the "consistency of scripture".

Those who simply are "playing games" at scripture trying to avoid its clear teaching will often abondon exegesis (SAME author using the SAME concept) and "pretend" that eacy time they find refernce to that same thing they are free to "imagine" entirely new meanings.

Indeed MOSES mention of the Clean/unclean animals in Gen 6 is the SAME as Moses mention of them in Lev 11.

That would be arguing IN the context of the "consistency of scripture" -- you know "exegesis" -- Same author same concept.

But it is interesting to see that you would take a leap off of that cliff in this "all for "?? (All for what? What do you get out of rejecting basic exegetical principles in that way?)

Here is John Gill's Commentary admitting to the obvious point that you "need" to deny no matter how "obvious".

Those who go after Adventist doctrine on these points end up rejecting well known Christian sources on almost every obvious point they pretend not to see.

You have to admit - that makes it kinda fun to do engage in these discussions!

IN Christ,

Bob

[ July 29, 2005, 09:01 AM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

I am reposting these Sabbath-responses back on the Sabbath thread - so this one can remain on the Ellen White topic.

Bob

 

sorry about that Ryan we'll stay on ellen here

speaking of ellen:
she said:

Adam also was deceived.
4SP 352
Adam was not deceived.
1 Timothy 2:14 RSV


and

Eve wandered away from the side of her husband, and was gazing with mingled curiosity and delight upon the fruit of the forbidden tree... She ate and ... took the fruit and found her husband.
3 SG 44


Gen 3:6 When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit of it, and ate; and she gave some to her husband WITH HER, and he ate.

also

They were clothed with a covering of light... While they lived in obedience to God, this circle of light enshrouded them.
3 SG 34

Immediately the covering of light about them disappeared...
3 SG 43


Gen 2:25 They were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Gen 3:7 The eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked. They sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

again she said:

... the plan of salation, dating from the fall of Adam ...
1 SM 231

immediately after the fall of man ... a plan was devised.
GC 347


titus 1:2 in hope of eternal life, which God, who can't lie, promised before time began;

1Pe 1:20 who(Jesus) was foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world, but was revealed at the end of times for your sake,

and

[The unclean beasts came] two and two, male and female, and clean beasts by sevens.
3 SG 67

Gen 7:2 You shall take seven pairs of every clean animal with you, the male and his female. Of the animals that are not clean, take two, the male and his female.

here too

[Birds of every description] came fling to the ark, two and two, male and female, and the clean birds by sevens.
3 SG 67

Gen 7:3 Also of the birds of the sky, seven and seven, male and female, to keep seed alive on the surface of all the earth.

and

Every species of animals which God had created was preserved in the ark. The confused species ... were destroyed [not taken in].
3 SG 15

Gen 6:19 Of every living thing of ALL FLESH, you shall bring two of every sort into the teivah, to keep them alive with you. They shall be male and female.

and

Now that every green thing had been destroyed, he allowed them [Noah's family] to eat the flesh of the clean beasts.
PP 107

Gen 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.
Gen 9:2 And let the fear of you and the dread of you be upon every animal of the earth, and upon all fowl of the heavens: upon all that moveth on the ground; and upon all the fishes of the sea: into your hand are they delivered.
Gen 9:3 EVERY LIVING THING THAT MOVES SHALL BE FOOD FOR YOU: as the green herb I give you everything.
Gen 9:4 Only, the flesh with its life, its blood, ye shall not eat.

(HOW ABOUT THOSE CLEAN ANIMALS FOR FOOD, OH NO NOAH COULD EAT ANY LIVING THING THAT MOVED)so why list clean and unclean...for sacrafices.
So much for your same author same definition of clean throughout (your exegesis) and same definitions at all point in the authors work.

Ellen a prophet who doesn't know the word of God?

hmmmmmm.


thankyou and God bless

 

Jer 23:32 Behold, I am against them that prophesy false dreams, saith the LORD, and do tell them, and cause my people to err by their lies, and by their lightness; yet I sent them not, nor commanded them: therefore they shall not profit this people at all, saith the LORD.


during the civil war she said:

**"Slavery will again be revived in the Southern States; for the spirit of slavery still lives. Therefore it will not do for those who labor among the colored people to preach the truth as boldly and openly as they would be free to do in other places. Even Christ clothed His lessons in figures and parables to avoid the opposition of the Pharisees."
Spalding, Magan Collection, page 21 and 2 MR #153, page 300

um was slavery revived after the civil war?no.

and she said in 1865:

**"I was shown the company present at the Conference. Said the angel: "Some food for worms, some subjects of the seven last plagues, some will be alive and remain upon the earth to be translated at the coming of Jesus." Testimonies, Vol. 1, p. 131

oops.

**The 1856 prediction was the last in an amazingly unsuccessful series of predictions of Christ's return made by Ellen White. Lucinda Burdick, a friend of Mrs. White in the 1840's, explains how Mrs. White often predicted Christ's return:

I became acquainted with James White and Ellen Harmon (now Mrs. White) early in 1845. ... She pretended God showed her things which did not come to pass. At one time she saw that the Lord would come the second time in June 1845. The prophecy was discussed in all the churches, and in a little "shut-door paper" published in Portland, Me. During the summer, after June passed, I heard a friend ask her how she accounted for the vision? She replied that "they told her in the language of Canaan, and she did not understand the language; that it was the next September that the Lord was coming, and the second growth of grass instead of the first in June." September passed, and many more have passed since, and we have not seen the Lord yet. It soon became evident to all candid persons, that many things must have been "told her in the language of Canaan," or some other which she did not understand, as there were repeated failures. I could mention many which I knew of myself.

Once, when on their way to the eastern part of Maine, she saw that they would have great trouble with the wicked, be put in prison, etc. This they told in the churches as they passed through. When they came back, they said they had a glorious time. Friends asked if they had seen any trouble with the wicked, or prisons? They replied, "None at all." People in all the churches soon began to get their eyes open, and came out decidedly against her visions; and, just as soon as they did so, she used to see them "with spots on their garments," as she expressed it. I was personally acquainted with several ministers, whom she saw landed in the kingdom with "Oh! such brilliant crowns, FULL of stars." As soon as they took a stand against the visions, she saw them "doomed, damned, and lost for ever, without hope."
(An Examination of Mrs. Ellen White's Visions, Miles Grant, Boston: Published by the Advent Christian Publication Society, 1877)

and

**In his book Three Important Questions for Seventh-Day Adventists to Consider (1876), former Adventist minister Charles Lee recalls an experience he had with Ellen White. The editor of the Swedish edition of Advent Herald, Mr. C. Carlstedt, had become seriously ill with Typhoid fever. Charles Lee, James and Ellen White, Uriah Smith and another man went to visit Mr. Carlstedt:

We all knelt in prayer for the sick man; and Mrs. W. praised the Lord because he was "present with his restoring power, to raise Carlstedt, whose sickness," she said, was "not unto death, but to the glory of the Son of God." To me it was darkness and death; and it was an evidence to my soul that if she was right before God, then I had never known any thing about the Spirit of God. Either of us was entirely deceived.

On our way back Mrs. W. said to me that the Lord was there with his restoring power, and she was confident that he would be restored to health again. I told her I did not realize it, and that it was darkness to me. She did not speak to me again that evening. As I parted from them, I went direct to Chicago, to continue my meetings. A few days after I came to Chicago, Mrs. W. sent me a written testimony; and in that she says she knew that I was under the influence of devils. The next day I received a dispatch that Mr. C. was dead. I read and re-read the testimony, and said to myself, "If she could see 3 years ago that Satan should take possession of my soul and body because I would not give myself entirely up to be led by her and her husband, why could she not see that Mr. C. would die a few days before he did, as her attention was called directly to his case? And if she saw my then pitiable condition so long before, why did she not warn me before Satan got me entirely under his influence?


and he knowledge of genetic was "revolutionary"

**By lacing, the internal organs of women are crowded out of their positions. There is scarcely a woman that is thoroughly healthy. The majority of women have numerous ailments. Many are troubled with weaknesses of most distressing nature. These fashionably dressed women cannot transmit good constitutions to their children. Some women have naturally small waists. But rather than regard such forms as beautiful, they should be viewed as defective. These wasp waists may have been transmitted to them from their mothers, as the result of their indulgence in the sinful practice of tight-lacing, and in consequence of imperfect breathing. Poor children born of these miserable slaves of fashion have diminished vitality, and are predisposed to take on disease. The impurities retained in the system in consequence of imperfect breathing are transmitted to their offspring. (Health Reformer Nov. 1, 1871)

The following excellent remarks are from The Household: ... "'But my waist is naturally slender,' says one woman. She means that she has inherited small lungs. Her ancestors, more or less of them, compressed their lungs in the same way that we do, and it has become in her case a congenital deformity." (Health Reformer Oct. 31, 1871)

wow i bet there are a bunch of doctor being trained wrong as science has proved that aquired physical traits are not passed on inthe genes (as the genes do not exist)

and she said:

"The eating of pork has produced scrofula, leprosy, and cancerous humors. Pork eating is still causing the most intense suffering to the human race." Counsels on Diet and Foods, p. 393, para. 2.

hahahaha

the truth:

**Scientific support that swine are not carriers of leprosy. From a letter dated 18-Feb-93: "As per our phone conversation of 15-Feb-93, swine are not a known host for Mycobacterium leprae, the cause of leprosy." W.G. Van Alstine, DVM. PhD, Veterinary Pathologist, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.

**"Infectious agent—Mycobacterium leprae, the leprosy (Hansen's) bacillus. Other than in man it has multiplied in the footpads of mice, in the tissues of immunosuppressed rodents, and in the armadillo. Reservoir— Man is the only known reservoir." Control of Communicable Diseases in Man, A. S. Benenson, pp. 175,176.

keeps going...


** But if there was one sin above another which called for the destruction of the race by the flood, it was the base crime of amalgamation of man and beast which defaced the image of God, and caused confusion everywhere.1

Every species of animal which God had created were preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood.
Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men.2

and just how did man and beast amalgamate?

**Ellen White's statement provoked instant controversy and stinging criticism of Ellen White in the 1860s forced church leaders to attempt to defend their prophet. In 1868, four years after the amalgamation statements first appeared in print, Adventist leader Uriah Smith5 published his defense of Ellen White. In that book he conjectured that the union of man with beast had created "such cases as the wild Bushmen of Africa, some tribes of the Hottentots, and perhaps the Digger Indians of our own country".6

James White "carefully" reviewed Smith's book prior to its publication, and then recommended it in glowing terms to the readers of the church's official magazine, the Review and Herald:

The Association has just published a pamphlet entitled, "The Visions of Mrs. E.G. White, A Manifestation of Spiritual Gifts According to the Scriptures." It is written by the editor of the Review. While carefully reading the manuscript, I felt grateful to God that our people could have this able defense of those views they so much love and prize, which others despise and oppose.

so black men, and ape's come from sex with animals, Modern genetics proved that wrong.

**quotes are taken from the Ellen White Project, www.ellenwhite.org.


some prophet

thankyou and God Bless

 

She references temptation as deciet in the case of 4SP 352.

In "Patriarchs and Prophets" and in SR she points out that when Adam saw Eve coming to him with the fruit having the great story to tell and how wonderfully well the experiment started by the serpent was going - he knew "IMMEDIATELY" that she had sinned had done what God forbade them to do AND that she must perish!

Ellen White's statements on the thinking of Adam and his KNOWING that Eve had fallen are far more explicit than you will find anywhere else.

Your argument is based on NOT knowing anything about Ellen White.

Which is why I prefer to keep the argument on Bible issues, doctrine etc.

It is pointless to engage on "Tests of a prophet" when the FIRST test is doctrine and you already state that you reject the doctrinal POV she claims God endorsed/promotes/confirms.

What is the point of going beyond that???

In Christ,

Bob

 

I don't normally do this - but since you asked about Adam at the fall of mankind --

 

Adam understood that Eve had sinned and that separation must result. Eve did not come to Adam proclaiming sin and separation and urging him to join her in being lost.

She appears to think she is doing Adam a favor.


From that same section above

Eve argued the empirical evidence refuting God's Word similar to evolutionists today.

In fact it is interesting that the argument was for an evolved existence - going to a higher level of existence - evolving to a more advanced creature -- being more like God in power and capability.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Your other rabbit trails here are just as spurious and the claim that Ellen White does not show Adam to be informed at his fall by comparison to Eve.

As I said - rather than going down each of those pointless trails - the first and most "valid" one is the doctrinal one - and that is why I prefer to have some exchange "that has a point" to it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

what is the point of this thread then. and i guess you dispute the findings of the ellenwhite project, thet she was not a prophet, it's run by SDA's and former SDA's. i guess you have to dispute this one with some of your own fellers. ellen white was not a prophet. on what basis, do you find ellen a prophet, and with what support (prophecies that actuall came true are irrelevent, as i have already show that some failed, and with God it's all or nothing when it come to prophets.

Jer 23:32 Behold, I am against them that prophesy false dreams, saith the LORD, and do tell them, and cause my people to err by their lies, and by their lightness; yet I sent them not, nor commanded them: therefore they shall not profit this people at all, saith the LORD.


and these harsh word from God about prophets:

Deu 18:20 But the prophet, who shall speak a word presumptuously in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who shall speak in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.


a word presumptuously, what about books full?

thank you and God Bless