Advent Talk
Theology Category => Doctrinal Discussions => Topic started by: Sauliga on June 12, 2012, 12:40:21 AM
-
Hi Johann
Thanks for your gracious welcome. My reason for being here is I need to solicit views on the 2300days/1844 doctrine. Yes, you guessed it right! Why bother?
I have gone through numerous sites and books, even going through critics of the doctrine adventist and non- adventist but none seem to give a satisfactory answer. I am holding to the fact that if the SOP is biblical then the doctrine is no doubt from God even though it is a smoke screen. Do you think it is a balanced view?
I will no doubt enjoy the varying views on numerous other issues addressed here.
-
Why call it a smokescreen? Was it a smokescreen for the disciples to claim that Jesus had been resurrected when He didn't take an earthly throne as expected, but was crucified instead?
-
Sauliga, are you having an issue with what takes place during the Investigative Judgement or the chronology of the 2300 days/1844, or perhaps both?
In the first case, you can see my study on the precise Chronological reckoning of the 70 Weeks, which anchor the 2300 days, here:
http://njkproject.blogspot.com/2008/07/biblical-interpretation-of-daniels-70.html
and in regards to the Investigative Judgement issue, you can see my comments here:
http://njkproject.blogspot.com/2009/10/pleading-proverbs-264-5.html#IJ1844
Of course, you can make your responding comments here.
Then there is always the issue of the relation of Dan 9's 70 Weeks to the 2300 days time of Dan 8:14 and also if the day-year principle is to be applied to those times. For starters, a good online resources that I have come across on this include:
http://everlasting-gospel.blogspot.com/2010/10/twenty-reasons-to-apply-yearday.html
and
http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/qod/q25.htm
Hope this is helpful!
-
Sauliga, are you having an issue with what takes place during the Investigative Judgement or the chronology of the 2300 days/1844, or perhaps both?
In the first case, you can see my study on the precise Chronological reckoning of the 70 Weeks, which anchor the 2300 days, here:
http://njkproject.blogspot.com/2008/07/biblical-interpretation-of-daniels-70.html
and in regards to the Investigative Judgement issue, you can see my comments here:
http://njkproject.blogspot.com/2009/10/pleading-proverbs-264-5.html#IJ1844
Of course, you can make your responding comments here.
Then there is always the issue of the relation of Dan 9's 70 Weeks to the 2300 days time of Dan 8:14 and also if the day-year principle is to be applied to those times. For starters, a good online resources that I have come across on this include:
http://everlasting-gospel.blogspot.com/2010/10/twenty-reasons-to-apply-yearday.html
and
http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/qod/q25.htm
Hope this is helpful!
Many, many, words but lacks the same signiture of Spirit of Prophecy by far as professed education takes over. The study should have been led and not riddled.
Either there was a last message given or there was not. and even though men may get more light or understanding as time sets the history I don't think there is a PS at the end or forgotten writings or changes of left out importance of issues.
I had a very hard hard time to follow all that and yet was in total understanding of each word with all writings of EGW and her concepts of all -made in simplicity and easy reading in every book that was hard to lay down until fully read. This study was taxing so much that ones brain especially mine could not keep it all focused. Something wrong here as this did not happen and kept my attention very keenly and to the point with EGW.
-
Tinka, I’ll say that your surface view of my (deliberate) writing style is “spot on”, but I’ll then merely add that: ‘those who understand the importance of the specificity in these truths make the effort to understand the explanations there’. In reality, what you are preferringly requesting is like asking to writing a college paper so that a person in 3rd grade can read and fully understand it, both substantively and stylistically. I don’t see that, pointedly SDA’s should (still) be at a third grade reading and comprehension level, and so many writings are not tailored to give this, effectively, stunted growth sustenance. Indeed much harm has been done by dumbing down the issues. So that pointedly responds in part to the substantive issue with my writings. The stylistic issue is another one which I will not pointedly address....however (Matt 13:10-17) and I sincerely can only feel sorry for you if you are on the “not/mis-understanding” side here.
-
I beg your pardon but I really came off quite simple and coy as not to offend someone that deliberately like to show off ability of highly educated years of study to try and stun average every day common sense abilities of people that evidently have to take time to work and raise families. You come across as if your a brand new prophet with extreme time of education and research of which is not all that bad but other things are important also, and no I do not take to that no matter how much education one has had. Scripture is understandable and explainable to me and it seems you have the capability of educating yourself into superiority. I study and learn new things every time, I have been in church for 71 years read all the books that the Holy Spirit gave his messenger, and find it sufficient for salvation. I find enough small details that satisfy me completely to know what truth is. I am not out to overdue, change or claim I know it all, but thankful the Lord has left me understand in simplicity. My education is simple in academic courses,but very much taught to discern. I am from large family, had large family, farmed, owned business bookkeeper, homemaker seamstress, cooking that I'm known for and experimented in vegetarian recipes of my own and was blessed with being born into 5 generations of Adventist. and then started all over with the next generation to help 15 grandchildren and 6 great grandchildren. Raised garden and canned all food with my mother and did it all again for every year for my family. I am a typical, common lay person that has put other people first, loved all and did for whom I could. I hope the Lord does not reject me because I did not know every tittle and dot of history or time that I did not calculate into proper frame. All I am stating is that was very hard to read. But on the other hand you may not be able to endure my agenda either. I also stated that as it was given to EGW and how it was related to her and how she wrote made it simple for a very busy person like me and many others to understand when we all could not give our lives as EGW did or chosen to do as she did. Your words do not have the same ring as hers does for what and how you claim.
You see I have deliberately not read outside books other just a few from Adventist writers, and I won't as I will not subject myself like others do to doubt what I clearly believe from Bible and SP. That is it. EGW sacrificed much and did all that years ago with her husband to make it simple for me now. The Holy Spirit did all that and directed her into the History as her writing displays, that you are now doing but claim this is happening to you. I do not believe there will be another message newer and different in light but maybe added light to what already is (not changed). but of course yours became to confusing. (for me, with less education of superiority) I seriously doubt anyone else followed through the whole thing as I did. If anyone did Id like to know who and the truth if they did and what the remarks might be. That talk wore my brain out. even Jesus did not speak in that manner. lol. Being the oldest of 6 having 6 and all these grandchildren and love of children my speech has mostly been to children. so forgive my stupidity in speech. Never had difficulty in reading until now. But I really did discern what you were doing and was not impressed with it. after all EGW only had 3rd grade level and you never know how important it might be to state and write simply. Next time for simple people "Time Line it". where it isn't taxing. People have to work these days. but guess some don't.
-
I “hear” you tinka but I actually just won’t do anything to change what it is that I have to widely/generally do (http://njkproject.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-first-vision.html#firstvision) in that case. (Cf. Matt 15:24; Ezek 11:14-21). All that I’ll say to you is: sorry you got caught in this, e.g., Dan 11 (http://njkproject.blogspot.com/2009/11/daniel-11-text.html) “crossfire”. Yet to be quite frank with you, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head in your response above because, as overwhelmingly typical with SDA’s as long as they themselves “get it” and believe it then, that’s all that matters for them. Try sharing your strongly convicted of belief with non-SDA’s who actually know all of the “proof holes” in. e.g., the typical SDA explanation of the 70 Weeks and like me, you’ll probably then greatly appreciate the highest possible Biblical Scholarship, (which is actually still not yet attained). And it is somewhat quite comical to me how you are stating that “the SOP’s (even SDA’s) explanations are good enough on that topic because that is precisely how I started with trying to share that prophecy with non-SDA’s but then quickly got stuck when I just could not find the concrete and transparent “proof” of many things that were being (rotely/traditionally) claimed. So I then set out to find out, and the rest has been my latest history...
And you should actually read how my book on the 70 Weeks (when it will be released/published) for it was written, as stated in the introduction, to: ‘feed the lambs/sheep and not the giraffes’. But for other also spiritually important reasons, my blog has to be exactly what it is. So that is the fact of the matter then.... and I do not inherently “have time”, for my research work, I have instead, variously, sacrificially made time for it, and God has abundantly blessed where needed to this end. So whether or not you yourself appreciate/value my work, it is still my painstaking work/job...and I have not exchanged for anything else as I easily and “popularly” should have a long time ago.
(Some of the views of others on that post that I was alluding to can be seen in the comments section on that post). So, actually seriously, sorry if I won’t be able to simplify things for you unless you have a valid question that I have not addressed, yet I’ll suggest that you have your local pastor read my blog and “surely”, (as the complacent belief is), he “should” (John 3:10) be able to clearly explain it to you (and perhaps) also your fellow local Church members. I just cannot begin to be responsible for the leadership-to-laity educational dysfunction in the SDA Church. Blame your local leadership for that problem...
-
Tell me where I am wrong on this:
1.Your stating that this time around you are the one getting it right with factual history records
.
2.That EGW was lax in getting it to the point of correctness and Adventist are in delusion of wrong belief.
3.You have been shown new light with immense study where she did not.
4.That non-Adventist already know more then we and cannot bluff them with our understanding of 2300 days.
5.and now we are puppets that stay in one realm of 3rd graders and cannot understand.
6.Then why waste a book if we are all so ignorant and stay with satisfied knowledge caged.
7.Do you have knowledge that SDA will except your new light? or in arrogance think they are quite limited -as you write they are.
8. Just how many Adventists would be in heaven if the Holy Spirit was lax and tricked them into a "Sealed" belief of EGW???
9. Then have someone with "proof" and new light show them how mistaken and stupid they were.
10. How is it you came to Advent Talk? other then see the same thing going on here with certain individuals claiming same ways of defect of SDA?
That point I was not clear on and should read again as I thought you meant you were doing this for "It is written"?? maybe it was just for your statement of what you found that was written, hopefully all biblical and not off the wall writers like those that wrote the rules and changed for their other denominations.
Just want to let you know one thing I sort of suspected as I read so many words to bring out your points. It was like you were double clutching it to get your points across into complete confusion with time consuming unnecessary. I still think it would have been better looked at in a time sequence where one can bounce it or pounce it.
The Antichrist will use the best intellect he can especially now at close of time. Of course to change and cause doubt. That is what I got afraid with all that excess. and no I do not need a pastor to explain anything for me as he is not responsible for me. I am responsible. and I presume you are not an Adventist. I think at the beginning you mentioned you might be Jewish. Sorry if I remembered wrong! Haven't had time to go back on that. True I did a fast pace through without doing all links as too many to comprehend all at one time. Your words disinterested me to take the time.
In order for me to really take it on I would have to print out then stay on computer forever to follow all your links to help with time and your telling me that others did that in a day. lol I don't think so. Then to weigh out if your biblical links are in same context as EGW put together actually led by Holy Spirit that was proof for me and as the same ringtone of scriptures.
You know you really can tell the same ringtone. I just did not hear it immediately with fast pace and use of unnecessary words showing off educated intellect. You call that arrogance and superiority in most cases. or just plain speaking down to someone that you feel are in a bubble. Are you sure coming off like that can attract interest to non-SDA. or is it to delude non-SDA by extreme show of intellect. Hmmmm
-
Tell me where I am wrong on this:
Succinctly said...on, in whole or in part, with each and every claim you made....but I won’t spare you the details here
1.Your stating that this time around you are the one getting it right with factual history records.
I am not sure what is the scope of your reply here and your subsequent points... i.e., my blog post on the 70 Weeks or more my blog and its ca. 60 posts in general.
-Well if the first case is your issue here, then you do grossly err to think that EGW herself had anything to do with the understanding of the reckoning and chronology of the 70 Weeks. William Miller of course is the one who originally figured it out and since then several other SDA’s have tweakingly and substantiatingly added their understanding to it. At best whenever EGW restates its interpretation in her writings (e.g., in GC PP 326.1-328.2), she is merely going by, off the top of her head, the prophetic exposition of someone in her day, e.g., Uriah Smith, John N. Andrews and/or her husband James, or more directly following a published exposition of it by those pioneers or others. And in regards to the 70 Weeks, my studies have shown that while the dates were correct the common substantiation of those dates by SDA preachers and expositors was shoddy, ambivalent, inconclusive and/or blatantly erroneous at best.
-If the latter is your case then there similarly is nothing wrong or evil with being able to transparently prove that what you claim to be the truth, is the concrete truth. But I see that SDA are too satisfied with the various proofs for their truth which they have been able to obtain according to their Biblical and Scholarly knowledge and in many often and key cases, just ignore the valid objections made against them. For a denomination which has the best global infrastructure or a religious system of higher education through the seminary level, there is just no excuse for this, nor is it for the lack of capability of its members to be also easily functional in that higher educational realm....if were are actually to fulfill God’s Triumphant desire of having a ‘nation made up entirely of priests’.
2.That EGW was lax in getting it to the point of correctness
I never said she was “lax”nor ever implied that. That is all your, at best, fabricated claim. My view of EGW is indeed admirably quite to the contrary. Yet the fact still remains that she was not a Bible scholar and in matters not evident in or from the plain English text, she was entirely dependent on Divine revelation for the accurate reading/understanding. E.g. her later understanding of John 20:17 (discussed here (http://njkproject.blogspot.com/2009/11/proof-is-in-bible.html)). The fact of the matter is that the average Bible scholar today have much more Biblical knowledge, including more accurate/correct knowledge than most , if not any, 19th century Bible Scholar, including the “greats” of that time. So that also includes SDA scholars as many studies done on their work and/or SDA beliefs by SDA’s since that time have repeatedly shown. They did the best in their time with what they had, but, as EGW herself said, there will never come a day when we will not have to learn more or even unlearn what we had previously learned and believed.
and Adventist are in delusion of wrong belief.
As the first century Jews learned first hand, it is inherently most dangerous to either have and/or hang on to an incomplete, incorrect understanding of truths, including not advancing truth up to the light and standard of what the Bible actually/fully teaches. The Devil will, by God’s permitting, indeed prey on such “cherished errors” whether great/total or small/partial to effectuate his last, overmastering deception. (=2 Thess 2:11-12) Particularly as many of those incorrect/wrong belief result in wrong/unrighteous living.
3.You have been shown new light with immense study where she did not.
To be precise here, I have actually exegetically discovered all of the New Light presented on my blog from a more indepth study of the Bible and SOP. No new teaching was brought by direct revelation, but merely confirming light upon what was already stated/prophesied in the Bible would happen, particularly in regards to the Shaking of the SDA Church (e.g, Ezek 9-11 & EW 269-273). So God was thus merely confirming that that long-ago prophesied time for that event had presently come.
It strikes me that you are coming off as an Ellen Whitist, where her writings have the last word over the Bible. Thus no advanced Bible study on a topic or issue which EGW did not know of or write about must automatically be false. That would be all against what she believed for herself and her ministry, and well as what she said about “new light”.
4.That non-Adventist already know more then we and cannot bluff them with our understanding of 2300 days.
Most of them, through their pastors and teachers, know how to validly refute our claims about our chronology for the 70 Weeks (and also 2300 day Investigative Judgement Event). But just undermine the 70 Weeks Chronology, including when was its precise start, and the 2300 days become a moot point. The common/typical SDA exposition just cannot answer those undermining objections by non-SDA’s. So since they are evidently not accepting the SDA’s supposed rock-solid chronology, and that despite the many great benefits it would have to them to most strikingly “prove that Jesus was Messiah” then SDA’s are evidently not “bluffing” them.
5.and now we are puppets that stay in one realm of 3rd graders and cannot understand.
Not “puppets”, since you neither inanimate and also free to do whatever you want to do, but indeed “3rd graders” in the light of the actual, scholarly Biblical knowledge that each member should have been facilitated to directly or indirectly have, from the Church’s tertiary educational resources in the area of Biblical/Religious Studies. Only a self-willed and cherished dysfunction and individualism in the Church is hampering this feasible realization and all of this is relatively actually not unlike the imposed ignorance of the laity involved in Christ’s day as well as in the days of the medieval Church. And which still has systemic derived/trace manifestations today. In all of these related cases, the end result of feasible deception will be the case.
And as ‘grown adults’, with e.g., you being at least 71 years old, you all can understand those things, but it is just that you have variously preferred or chosen not to make growing in such knowledge a priority or necessity, and have either explicitly or implicitly attracted pastors who would cater to that preference of yours. So the members insist that their pastors feed them with the ‘milk of the word’ and “simple foods” and given the much less work that is involved in procuring and preparing such foods, most pastors readily agree to do this. (=Heb 5:11-14)
6.Then why waste a book if we are all so ignorant and stay with satisfied knowledge caged.
....(1) from the very start, my book’s targeted audience is not SDA’s and (2) as I said, I have done the facilitating work to present all of these involved high scholarship issues, but in a “dedactively” understandable way.... (just could not succinctly do the same on its summary, preview blog post).
And, my only calling and obligation was to research and write the book, what you and others choose to do with it, is entirely your problem, it does not at all affect me, nor am I clamoring for your business/purchasing, and thus conforming to your whimsical desires. Just the great knowledge that I have learned from that study has effectively tangibly “paid for” all that was expended to secure and obtain that ‘pearl of great price’
7.Do you have knowledge that SDA will except your new light? or in arrogance think they are quite limited -as you write they are.
In regards to the 70 Weeks book itself, I actually have much evidence that they will indifferently treat it, as those who have seen it in, e.g., SDA colleges, the Seminary, the BRI and the ATS, have not been eager to help me complete it as it needs to be and have it published. In regards to my blog’s new light in general, (if that is actually what you were referring to), the same also applies. In both cases, that is not my problem. The Bible and Church History, including in EGW’s time is filled with examples of people only selectively choosing what they want to believe from the messages of people who God was using and working through. Presently that is seen in the many testimony of EGW which are partially or entirely ignored by the Church today, not to mention the Biblical teachings which are similarly ignored or partially observed. That makes no difference because Biblical Truth will still be the incontrovertible truth, now matter who accepts it or not.
So I think these past and continuing examples self-answer the second part of your question.
8. Just how many Adventists would be in heaven if the Holy Spirit was lax and tricked them into a "Sealed" belief of EGW???
Not sure I get your question or the rational logic of it, but the Holy Spirit is not responsible to force someone to study their Bible to the best level that it should be, nor is there a message from God through the Holy Spirit, not even from EGW herself (cf. 6T 17.1), to only believe what EGW said/wrote and nothing more. The Holy Spirit will merely continue to guide to new light, which God continually reveals, pointedly in order to best deal with the manifested sin and evil in a generation’s own day. (E.g., the Health Reform’s vegetarianism ideal was not a present truth in the Apostle’s day) What a person then decides to do with that present new light is entirely up to them.
9. Then have someone with "proof" and new light show them how mistaken and stupid they were.
“mistaken”, perhaps/likely, in certain areas. That is indeed always a possibility as EGW was neither inerrant nor infallible and even corrected her own past errors and misunderstanding in later writings.
“stupid”, only if the actions or rationales that led to that false or mistaken belief factually was. Grown adults professing or claiming to want to teach others the truth but preferring not to know about advanced/scholarly Biblical things incontrovertibly qualifies as a “stupid” action and they’ll just reap the fruit of that persisted “stupid” course.
10. How is it you came to Advent Talk?
This responding post to the 70 Weeks was my first post. It was meant to help those seeking for more concrete evidentiary answers on the 70 Weeks. But you here decided to ‘make a federal case’ on my entire blog instead. So are responsible here of going off subject.
other then see the same thing going on here with certain individuals claiming same ways of defect of SDA?
Claiming something is one thing, concretely demonstrating it is another things and in addition to my concrete Biblical studies which show that many SDA teachings are (indifferently) deficient, I have also a litany of prideful and vexatious actions by many SDA’s in an attempt to avoid having to deal with these advanced studies and their new light.
That point I was not clear on and should read again as I thought you meant you were doing this for "It is written"??
If you mean the SDA Media Ministry with John Bradshaw, then that certainly is not the case. I had only asked them to help me when I first launched out in this ministry effort, but they did not help me.
maybe it was just for your statement of what you found that was written, hopefully all biblical and not off the wall writers like those that wrote the rules and changed for their other denominations.
Not sure from where you are making this claim/supposition or statement. I just present my Biblical studies on my blog and if/when others make a corroborating or contributive or originally good point towards a topic, whether SDA or not, then I do cite them on my blog.
Just want to let you know one thing I sort of suspected as I read so many words to bring out your points. It was like you were double clutching it to get your points across into complete confusion with time consuming unnecessary. I still think it would have been better looked at in a time sequence where one can bounce it or pounce it.
Not sure I understand your “bounce it or pounce it” claim, but.... as a freebie: that style of writing of the blog was utilized so that such a ‘bouncing or pouncing’ can be, and at merely a peripheral level, than a substantive one. E.g., ‘I can’t stand the style so I won’t bother trying to understand the substance of what is being discussed’. For such cases then “(Mandated) Mission Accomplished”.
The Antichrist will use the best intellect he can especially now at close of time. Of course to change and cause doubt. That is what I got afraid with all that excess.
I am fully aware at what the Antichrist and also the empowering Devil will intellectually do to try to deceive even the very elect if possible. Which is why I have been working on better proving and substantiating what the Biblical Truths are. And only the “very elect” will appreciate this work and see through any peripheral obstacle to get at the core substance. So that jointly is my pointed purpose here as I don’t want to have to deal with people who are actually not deeply rooted. E.g., who don’t want to make any effort to read and understand a Biblical subject.
and no I do not need a pastor to explain anything for me as he is not responsible for me. I am responsible.
I was here pointedly referring to scholarly Biblical knowledge and just judging by you quibbling responses here where you manifestly thought/think EGW has the final word on everything, I actually don’t see that you are well grounded in either scholarly knowledge nor a proper understanding of the role of the SOP. Just reading works by SDA historian George R, Knight on the SOP should be able to calibrate you on that issue. (See e.g. his sermon here (http://betterlifetv.tv/watch_videos_now.php?ProgID=15) entitled: FP782 - The Great Gulf: Joseph Smith vs. Ellen White on the Relation of the Gift of Prophecy). And in regards to my 70 Weeks post, just comparing your reactionary, objecting comments with e.g., that of Florin Laiu here (http://njkproject.blogspot.com/2008/07/biblical-interpretation-of-daniels-70.html?showComment=1259309535245#c4288785418656753906) who clearly, readily got things here, and has seen the benefit of these more advanced studies, then I would be seeing, particularly since you are manifestly needing to save as much time as possible, that you would be needing the assistance of a/your pastor, who should (John 3:10), particularly if they have an SDA seminary decree, be able to help you fully grasp in such advanced studies. That is actually how the Church should functionally operate, from top (Scholars) to the Bottom (novice lay person). I personally do not recommend each member fending for themselves for advanced knowledge particularly knowing from my own experience how resource and finance costly this endeavor is, but that is the heralded norm in a systemically dysfunctional Church in that regard.
and I presume you are not an Adventist. I think at the beginning you mentioned you might be Jewish. Sorry if I remembered wrong! Haven't had time to go back on that.
You find what my “denominational status” is on this post (http://njkproject.blogspot.com/2012/04/gods-new-true-remnant-church.html). And don’t let “Zionist” mislead to think that I am Jewish for Zion is the spiritual objective of God most faithful endtime people (Rev 14:1-5). Given the fact that SDA have effectively preferred to not advance in the new and greater light that is found in the Bible and SOP, I now consider myself to be of “SDA Background”, for, as Ezek 11:22-23 shows, God’s is not limited to any organization of man. His (Remnant) Church is wherever his Truth is present and obediently obeyed.
True I did a fast pace through without doing all links as too many to comprehend all at one time.
If I had provided ‘not enough (documenting) links I think you would have equally complained about that fact... so I just can win here, can’t please/meet everyone fancy and preference.
Your words disinterested me to take the time.
They were indeed meant to disinterest those who want to be disinterested on these topics.
In order for me to really take it on I would have to print out then stay on computer forever to follow all your links to help with time and your telling me that others did that in a day. lol I don't think so.
Not my fault, nor problem. I jsut have to present the info... you’ll do whatever you want to with it...In the end, it will just be that I’ll still know what I known about those posted topics and you and the like will not. And then there will only be one way and one chance to determine if doing the required effort to study out these topic was worthwhile, but then, like the foolish virgins, it will be way to late to get those insights into Scriptures.
Then to weigh out if your biblical links are in same context as EGW put together actually led by Holy Spirit that was proof for me and as the same ringtone of scriptures.
What I have see is typical with people like you here is that you choose to selectively ignore everything in the Bible and SOP, even from God Himself in both sources, which speak sternly to God’s professed people and only collect the “cheerful” and ‘Peace, Peace’ statement. Suit yourself. I go by the full counsel of God and the adverse statements in both the Bible and SOP fully apply towards the present Remnant Church organization, namely the SDA Church.
You know you really can tell the same ringtone.
You’ll also have to, at least objectively, “ring” both “tones” in the Bible and SOP to see the one which corresponds and matches mine....because, as seen in this post (http://njkproject.blogspot.com/2012/03/woe-to-you-seventh-day-adventists-matt.html), that is precisely where I am getting it.
I just did not hear it immediately with fast pace and use of unnecessary words showing off educated intellect.
Seems to me that you here and through my mirroring/mimicking way have encountered the Isa 6:8-13 & Matt 13:10-17 “ringtone”. So, as those passages involve, you actually heard it but just did not understand/comprehend it (cf. John 12:39-41). Again that would be a “Mission Accomplished” for me.
You call that arrogance and superiority in most cases. or just plain speaking down to someone that you feel are in a bubble.
Not sure exactly what you are saying or mean, nor what you are referring to here... but, (if that is what you meant), I consider various objections to my blog posts as just what they pointedly are in that context and against a particular person. Nonetheless most objections are out of a vexatious offense at the effort that would be needed to understand what had been posted. I can’t nor won’t expend more time to ease that since those who are thus objecting actually clearly did not have an intent to study these topics for themselves but just wanted to get spoon-fed.
And in regards to your common “don’t have the time for it” then, on one hand, if I was advancing, e.g, that ‘there exists little green plastic men or unicorns on the moon’, then how does “time” come to be a pertinent issue for such a clearly fictional topic. From what I am reading from you, your main objection is not one of substance but, peripherally, merely style and tone and that is why you are considering time to be pertinent here in relation to what would be required to verify the message of my posts. Therefore, in that case, if you actually wanted to do these studies, then you would do as I see from my web log, most others doing, and that is returning to the blog post several times for however how long they need to to read/study it. Indeed take 5 minutes a day for two years if that is ‘all you can spare’, if you actually have any interest in studying out my Biblical studies (cf. Acts 17:11).
In regards to the “bubble” here, if again that is what you meant: just burst your paramount insulating bubble of assumed and traditional belief and dutifully engage the reality of valid objections of non-SDA’s.
Are you sure coming off like that can attract interest to non-SDA. or is it to delude non-SDA by extreme show of intellect. Hmmmm
“Hmmmm”.... As a matter of fact, only my first couple of posts (= first two book previews) were intended to speak to non-SDA’s, as those books are pointedly targeted towards them, but those posts were actually also veiled for certain reasons. Most of my other posts are pointedly targeted at SDA’s and thus necessitate to be in the way that I have posted them. When I am in a position to launch my ministry as I am planning to then you’ll be able to see it as it then duly should be, yet SDA’s will have had their fitting chance!
-
Well, its Sabbath and I decided to dive into your first segment. So far so good and am agreeable with all that I already know. Why in the world would you come off like you have in first impressions that would disinterest anyone?
I will continue now to look at your points that you feel we as SDA don't comprehend. Very agreeable so far but posting early cause I see what you are doing but why would you think Adventists don't know these points as you prove how EGW stated truth? Maybe it will change as I go on but plan to get through it all untill I see why you think we are still in the dark.... as 3rd graders. Yes, I can see how you give out info for non Adventist but to go that far for Adventists not knowing Hmmmm, I just have to read more until I fully see your reasoning of such comments that can fire almost anyone up as Adventists in their realm of "no new light" accepted or capable of understanding.
I am very much aware of the studies of individuals that you have listed. and so far nothing new to me here but do not mind going over ..so far. And why would they not help you if all is well?
Just wondering if you put together a version of 144,00 which takes my interest in study that does not bring you salvation to know but do not like the concept that some have of a literal number and yes I know that the church does divide on different issues that I wish they did not. That is why I have done extensive study too on my own.
Although my speech is point blank and instantly made known in discernment on how people come across and makes one wonder what they are up to. So what my attitude does is brings people out into conversation until I can grasp what I want to know. So maybe we do things the same in a sort of sense. So will read on in discovery ....of some sort ;D
-
Tying the 70 weeks to sabbatical cycles is the right thing to do, but I do see some difficulties with your site's explanations, NJK.
1) Dating Ezra 4:8-23 in 452 to 450 BC conflicts with PK 572-573 (1917); 4BC 1175 (MS 116 1897); RH 12-05-07, three different statements which all date the cessation of work on the walls as being during the reign of the false Smerdis.
2) There is no hint in PK ch. 56 of a transposition of Neh. 8.
Since the Hebrew wording of Dan. 9:25 points to starting the 70 weeks with a decree to restore the judiciary (do a word study on the word translated as "wall" or "moat"), I don't know what would be gained by proposing the transposition of Neh. 8.
-
Tinka, as I have known, and have quite literally been saying from the start, indeed starting with various people I discussed my issue on the 70 Weeks with while then at Andrews, my issue has never been with the dates themselves, or with most of the events which we see as fulfilling the prophesy but mainly with most of the proof for why those dates and events fufill those events. I was clearly seeing then that most Christians reject the SDA interpretation because they could easily and quite validly poke all kinds of holes in the “proofing” presented. And, just like in court, if you cannot prove your claim/allegation, you just can’t win the case. So my book presents either more/most accurate or originally new proofs for those dates or events than what SDA’s have brought forth and presented thus far, and also some entirely different events of fulfilment. So if you want to see and appreciate the value of my work, then, as I initially set out to do, try to incontrovertibly prove that your view on the prophecy is right, and in the light of the valid objections out there in the rest of the Christian World. So anything “new” here is keyly and most significantly, mainly in the proofing...(and in certain cases, I may have to withhold any specific or detailed explanations, as I did in that blog post in regards to this proofing, until I release my book.)
And Owusu-Brempong book was quite a major advance in the SDA understanding and proofing of that prophecy, but as typical with the existing scholarly/scholarship dysfunctionality in the SDA Church, those better finding have by the vast majority never trickled down to the average lay member, and in also most cases, not even to the level of the Local Pastor. As Bacchiocchi used to lament from his (weekly) personal observation, ‘most SDA pastor have not cracked opened a scholarly or theological since their days in College, which can technically be up to 45 years ago.
So if you further want/need to understand my reason for my presentation approach here, it is pointedly because of my ire against that indifferently enshrined, cherished, revered dysfunctionality in the Church and so, like God/Jesus act in such cases of willful blindness, you still do you task of “enlightening” such people who prefer their darkness, but do so with the high beams so as to further blind them (Isa 6:8-13/Matt 13:10-17), [can’t say He didn’t tell you!!] and, as stated here (http://njkproject.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-first-vision.html#firstvision), that discretionarily is indeed all part of my marching orders and ministry mandate.
In regards to the 144,000, I have not done a pointed study on that topic but do discuss it in several blog posts. As that topic is explicitly mentioned in Rev 7:4-8, 14:1-5; 15:2, you’ll find the listing of blog post where it is discussed in my blog’s TOC section (http://njkproject.blogspot.com/2009/11/blog-posting-note.html) (scroll down to the Revelation listing). The indirect but related topics of ‘what it will take to be part of the 144,000 are also listed there. (Once you click on a particular blog post, doing a browser search with the word “144,000" may help pinpoint where I am explicitly discussing that topic. In fact doing either a blog search with that key term or a Google site search [= “144,000" site:njkproject.blogspot.com] can also be helpful.
-
1) Dating Ezra 4:8-23 in 452 to 450 BC conflicts with PK 572-573 (1917); 4BC 1175 (MS 116 1897); RH 12-05-07, three different statements which all date the cessation of work on the walls as being during the reign of the false Smerdis.
It indeed does Bob, but, most seriously stated, unless you can provide an “I was shown” statement by EGW claiming that ‘God showed her that this was the date of that event’, then I see here another, though rare, case where EGW did not accurate understand the issue here, as neither did any scholars in her day. She just wrote here according to what she understood to be the truth. That is not an impossibility in her case. E.g., early on for two years after her first vision in 1844, she didn’t see any truth in Joseph Bates teachings on the Seventh Day Sabbath, until she studied it out in the Bible. There is also the (somewhat converse) case, discussed in this note (http://njkproject.blogspot.com/2010/12/unrolling-of-scroll.html#24elders), where in DA, she, for some reason, wrongly conflated the 2 post-resurrections ascensions of Christ into one event, whereas before she was correctly distinctly relating them.
So, as she counsels, the Bible (and inherently exegetical Biblical studies, which can also involve historical studies), is the final arbitrator, especially in such factually involved matters. Indeed it was my exegetical (lexical) studies on the key words mentioned in Ezra 4:16 which confirmed a study which I saw in a recently published commentary on the works of Herodotus and was showing that certain Persian historical event in relation to the Rebellion of the Governor of the Region Beyond the River, Megabysus, (-events which affect the date of the Biblical allusions made here), should be slightly moved up (=earlier). So I think that if EGW had those facts from those more advanced and more accurate Exegetical and Historical studies, she would have “filled” in here account here with such proven and better facts.
2) There is no hint in PK ch. 56 of a transposition of Neh. 8.
Indeed there is not, for the same reasons/issues of advanced studies mentioned above. That is the major new point in my book and its proofing is well and concretely documented, involving Biblical, Historical and Logical arguments, as well as, most determinatively, advanced (Hebrew) syntax arguments which go beyond what scholars had previously claimed to both support and also refute this long discovered possible (and indeed actual) transposition here. Again EGW and other SDA Scholars then (and even now) had not done those advanced (factual) studies.
Since the Hebrew wording of Dan. 9:25 points to starting the 70 weeks with a decree to restore the judiciary (do a word study on the word translated as "wall" or "moat"), I don't know what would be gained by proposing the transposition of Neh. 8.
I have done a word study on those terms, (as well as every other major term in that prophecy), (and Owusu-Antwi’s book also provides a great study on many of those terms), and the Hebrew word in question here, dabar does not necessarily point to a “decree”, in fact, it technically does not. The major and valid objection with claiming the “decree” of/in Ezra 7 is that the word “going forth, would involve the actual time when that decree was given and not as SDA’s claim when Ezra put it into effect upon his arrival in Jerusalem. So with that decree given actually sometime before Ezra set out on his 4 month trip starting in April 457 B.C. that would be here the latest date for the start of the prophecy. Not to mention that Ezra probably took some time to prepare that ‘moving out of Babylon’ caravan and therefore probably got the decree a while (i.e., some months) before April 457 B.C. And there is also the realistic fact that such a journey would not be done during the winter months so Ezra may even have waited out the entire winter before beginning to travel. So he may have gotten that decree as far back as the Fall of 458 B.C.
And in regards to the common “arrival in Jerusalem” claim by SDA (again a claim that has no valid proof, especially to non-SDA’s), Ezra arrived in Jerusalem in late July or Early August 457 B.C. So the prophecy’s chronology should begin then, but SDA “somehow” claim that it instead begins in the Seventh Jewish months (thus 2+ months later) and most Christians clearly see this as merely reverse-interpretation based on the SDA claim that the 2300 ended on October 22, 1844 and so are, quite logically, leery of such a claim. (Just as we are of the Gap Theory in the claim which is similarly subjectively claimed to make their chronology of the 70 Week work). So only the concrete proof will win out here, and the Transposition issue perfectly resolves all of those issues. Hint: (1) look up where and how the word “dabar” is used in Nehemiah and (2) answer simply this logical in regards to the transposition: why would Ezra wait 13 years to read the law to Israel, and the people were then indeed astonished and saddened by what it said, as if entirely hearing it (indeed) for the first time (since before the 70 Years of Captivity), when that is precisely what he was setting out to do and was equipped to do (Ezra 7:6, 10, 25). Also try to answer why would Ezra get so upset about the issue of mixed marriages in Ezra 9 if the people then were in total ignorance (as “Neh 8" shows) about what God required in His law. Etc. And those are just some of the Biblical/Logical arguments. The other category of argument solidify this Transposition understanding.
-
3:45 am and after about 3 hrs of sleep awoke and trying to decided what is the best way to approach such an issue of discovery that you have presented in determined book learning and grand style. Hour upon Hours since after church yesterday and still never to an end could be accomplished and following every link as I went.
My first glance and first posting I knew a time frame of 70 weeks was going to be attacked plus how everything was presented in the beginning disinterested me, but decided to see where you were coming from after your posting dynamics. Then further and further I read until disbelief of multiple and multiple mind avenues, Just one example as I could go on for I think a whole year interjecting a red sentence or two at each point. But just not worth it as at this point. In your life as it is, you would be insulted at your superior efforts for anyone to challenge your "Olympic determinations".
First of all I want to state what I'm going to, with much caring to an individual that I feel is in much jeopardy.
As I scrolled down to spot check for the second time I decided to read your "dream" or vision first. How it came about, how it was presented. It was quite unusual, and strange.
You see I also have had a couple of dreams but really sort of between Me and Jesus and although I would love to broadcast it yet feel to sort of protect what was special to just me in a couple of situations and most endearing that I will never ever forget.
Just because Jesus gave what I feel a dream or vision does not put me above anyone, anything or even salvation because of it. It was an event for my want of heart to be near Him, see him. I look forward to the reality of it someday. My road has been rocky but my "dream has Kept me" through much. and mostly I feel very inadequate to describe His love and help.
In any dreams presented to anyone I firmly believe an angel or Jesus will not have to hide or stand behind doors while smoke seems to be coming from everywhere. You see your dream I do not believe was interpreted correctly or could be penetrated by one so self taught and rejected any reasoning from anyone. But yet Joyce Meyer or just anyone that would up your own thoughts or would you call that "smoke"
From there I stopped and then went back to the very beginning and started.
From what I read on the "first book of Yourself" I discovered you penned a very vivid picture of your character, what and how you were raised Your goals and your achievements and how and why you needed to achieve. When your most desired achievements you felt might be against your upbringing you simply transferred it to "religion" almost as a game.
To say the least it was beyond alarming. Step by step you needed to be superior in all things. You floundered in all to be superior in all from where ever it came from mostly from "smoke".
I can see along the way people you were under in educational places tried to help you kindly the best way without tipping the whole milk bucket. Your spirit was angry and rebellious whether you think so or not. Who taught you this? You were book learned at very early age maybe too early and taught to be superior or where this drive came from is unknown and why.
Now you might ask your self a very good question - why would God choose a very humble and unlearned with selfless interest or schooled nor schooled in Bible to do his amazing work?? I can tell you why.
I see in your profile you are 37 years old. You've spent this long in being superior and yet no way could or would I ever think you should be a pastor or lead out in your self accomplishments. I understand fully why there would be no help for this book you feel is so accomplished with such great effort. You are self taught into your own conclusion that needs to be a great accomplish-er of perfection of biblical continuance and perfect historical change. Why, to please the Lord? To perfect what he did not in His chosen vessel of EGW?
I want to give you one example where you are wrong with the 4 wind scenario. You went through all that history concluding in your superior find that the coming was put off over and over and all your reasoning why connected to wars, and everything you could muster that kept Jesus from coming because of world events. That is completely wrong!!!
Why would you think that worldly events can control anything that God wants to do. Let me give you a simple reason and correctly on the counsel between The Father and the Son on Jesus pleading for "My blood, My blood" It was simply because of the Last and 3rd Angels message to reinstate to Gods church and people the 4th Commandment of his law that was forgotten and NOT kept.
Bring Sabbath back bring the commandment of truth back and the reason of creation to be reestablished. How could he come when people did not have Sabbath in mind?? When simply it stated that if you break one and all is at stake. Would that have been fair? No,
Back in Johns day (His vision of future) it was foretold "were" sealed Messengers that would go through out the "tribes" (or nation) in future as the word used "were" was already established for future plan. This is the plan that was decided in the counsel between The father and the son that people would "remember what was forgotten or changed. That was the reason and not the people with world affairs controlling Jesus when he comes. They were not into this counsel of stopping the 4 winds because they did not know what to do about the world events of people. This is just plain ridiculous. That was just too far out for me.
You know, I may have read a few books of different Adventists, Lewis Walton etc etc. But when I read I do 2 things, 1st I am studying the author and whether I can believe what he is writing and how they present. Then I know whether to believe what they are writing is truly inspired and truth. and then there is I suppose authors that can write truth and have bad stuff in closets. in other words good talk but hiding.
After reading hours and hours I went back and reread your dream thoroughly again, Your dream was a warning and not how you related to it to "change" and be the new scholar of the world. The only thing I can gather is that you are self appointed through out and always. You need to redirect yourself from self if possible. All your multiple avenues of speculating man made historical circles always are not circles that match the inspired writings or scripture but channels of confusion or from man made "smoke" that clouds into every direction. and yet I care what has happened here or I would not have taken the time to see. I see your book as an embarrassment to your intellect. I do not mean to offend but point blank as I see it from your writing. No where can you compare that the Holy Spirit ever had EGW write or would she in this manner of vanity.
-
1) Dating Ezra 4:8-23 in 452 to 450 BC conflicts with PK 572-573 (1917); 4BC 1175 (MS 116 1897); RH 12-05-07, three different statements which all date the cessation of work on the walls as being during the reign of the false Smerdis.
It indeed does Bob, but, most seriously stated, unless you can provide an “I was shown” statement by EGW claiming that ‘God showed her that this was the date of that event’, then I see here another, though rare, case where EGW did not accurate understand the issue here, as neither did any scholars in her day.
I doubt that your statement is true. John Gill states that Schelomoh Jarchi Ben Jizchak taught that Ahashuerus in Ezra 4 was Esther's husband, and Jarchi died in 1180. More recently, Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown published their commentary in 1871, and they said that Ahasuerus in Ezra 4:6 was Xerxes. Who all has taught that the Artaxerxes of Ezra 4 is the same as the Artaxerxes of Ezra 7, I do not know right off.
Further, your position is problematic in that it calls into question any statement in the Bible or SoP that does not have "I was shown" attached. Thus much of 1 Corinthians is up for grabs since Paul was informed about the problems at Corinth by the house of Chloe, not by vision.
Lastly, your position seems to exalt scholars above the Bible (and SoP) itself. Nowhere does the Bible (or SoP) state that the Ahashuerus and Artaxerxes of Ezra 4 are Xerxes and Artaxerxes Longimanus, and thus that the kings of Ezra 4 are not arranged chronologically. What then is your authority? The suppositions of scholars?
She just wrote here according to what she understood to be the truth. That is not an impossibility in her case. E.g., early on for two years after her first vision in 1844, she didn’t see any truth in Joseph Bates teachings on the Seventh Day Sabbath, until she studied it out in the Bible.
Apples and oranges, unless you can provide a reference where she wrote against the Sabbath. Just because someone is a true prophet does not mean that they understand all truth. But that is quite different from proposing that their inspired writings contain theological errors.
There is also the (somewhat converse) case, discussed in this note (http://njkproject.blogspot.com/2010/12/unrolling-of-scroll.html#24elders), where in DA, she, for some reason, wrongly conflated the 2 post-resurrections ascensions of Christ into one event, whereas before she was correctly distinctly relating them.
I don't think you have conclusively presented your case at that link. You've simply presented a hypothetical theory without conclusive proof. There are multiple ways of explaining the points you raised.
Since the Hebrew wording of Dan. 9:25 points to starting the 70 weeks with a decree to restore the judiciary (do a word study on the word translated as "wall" or "moat"), I don't know what would be gained by proposing the transposition of Neh. 8.
I don't understand how your reply addresses the specific point I raised regarding the restoration of the judiciary, as mandated by the word for wall/moat. You instead bring up a different issue, that if what the "going forth" must mean. Before we start discussing a different issue, please address the point I raised.
-
Wow tinka, the more I read your response and see with what spiritual shallowness you are operating in, the more I see that it is not (sacrificially) worth my time having a discussion with you. Indeed I could easily debunk point by point all of your statements, but that just would not be worth my time. In fact, my whole writing style and approach was to weed out non-spiritually minded persons like you. Just comparing you to the various other people who are even ‘half/partially getting my postings, even style of posting), (and even if they generally do not agree with me), confirms to me how much of a caseload a discussion with you would be. So unless you have something substantive to discuss rather than all of your wrong and judgmental assumptions and conclusion about me, my calling, my “giftings”, spiritual experience and my intentions, then do spare me your uniformed and unspiritual opinions. As much as you may dislike the analogy, it is to me all like ‘trying to teach College Calculus to a Third Grader.’
All I can recommend to you is, at the very least, read better and read more of what I have posted. [For one factual thing, you’ll also find out that I did not just have one vision/dream and posted it]. And also do read and heed God’s pointed warnings and dealing with a rebelliously wayward people...
I’ll just say this, and you can take it however you need to, I do thank God for having given me a spirit of “superiority” as you pejoratively need to deem/call it, because that very spirit is what has led me to never accept the fake facade of rightness commonly put forth by my various “superiors” in life, but rather to find out what the truth/rightness/righteousness of a matter is for myself, and that in whatever field I delved it in my life.
-
-Bob:
Your response about the Ahasuerus vs. Artaxerxes seems rather vexatious towards me because you quote scholars to make your point on Ahasuerus. To be specific, I do not merely “quote scholars” but only use their work when I find them to be “evidentiarily” correct/accurate. Simply mainly recalling off the top of my head, try a few SDA scholars for those who are claiming that Artaxerxes in Ezra 4:7 is Longimanus. (E.g., SDABC Vol 3) And who else would be ‘the king from whom Jews had come to rebuild Jerusalem’ (Ezra 4:12)??!
(And if you are just going to vexatiously and antogonistically, mindlessly quibble as responses, then please don’t waste my time. Study out your responses better before posting/posing them to me.)
-Ellen White did not have to write a treatise against the Sabbath, she “wrote” how she thought for a while how Bates was in error over the Sabbath. She then probably openly opposed Bates during that time when he would try to present that truth. And it was probably because he did not then try to preach that message widely to “the scattered flock” that she did not correspondingly write a message opposing it.
And, technically speaking, the earliest document which contained a (prophetic) writing of EGW was the 1847 Word to the Little Flock pamphlet. So that was after she learned the truth about the Sabbath
-The fact that EGW switch views on what took place in Christ ascensions between her 3SP account and DA is self-evident. No need for a detailed treatise there. You may want to succinctly list your “multiple explanations” because I cannot see any good reason why she would make that switch except for a wrong assumption on her part or an inadvertent and uncaught error either by her and/or by her DA editor(s). That would not be an impossibility on her part for in another place, she mistakenly attributes (in a published and never changed or corrected writing), a statement of Paul to Peter (or vice versa). (cf. Matt 23:35). For me, that does not at all affect her overall inspiration or writing. (nor that of Jesus in that Matt statement, -if it was him who made that error, and not Matthew himself.). EGW’s writing, as per her humble allowance, must still be exegetically tested and fact checked. Again, she was not inerrant nor infallible. And whether or not Paul knew the particulars of a situation did not affect that he knew that what he would be saying on it was not from a direct revelation from God, but solely on what he believed what right, based on what he Biblically knew. The same can and has been involved in certain assuming claims and counsels of EGW. As with e.g., the prophet Nathan, sometimes a prophet of God is merely sharing, even authoritatively, their assuming opinion. And it is actually a presumptuous Capital sin if they are claiming that they know it as a fact to be the word of God. (Deut 18:18-20-22, -hindered fulfilments of (conditional) prophecies taken into consideration of course) Which is why I see that EGW knew to let all of her writings be subject to Biblical scrutiny since she did not always differentiate between explicit revelations and common knowledge ones.
-My response on your Dan 9:25 statement is most pertinent, because the start of the chronology of the prophecy pivotally revolves around the “going forth” specification for the looked for action and what action itself is. So, as I said, if you are choosing the command of Artaxerxes, the exegetically accurate understanding is when it was pronounced, which was probably the Fall of 458 B.C. The SDA “magical” claim of ‘2 month after Ezra arrive is not logically or exegetically tenable. Even a July-August 457 claim is similarly not. So I am not switching topic here, that is the focal issue in that topic and you’ll need to get up to speed on the involved paramount and intrinsic association here. And this actually all reminds me of my initial view when writing my book at that statement because I back had a similar view as yours, even while also having the Transposition view. I have since made the exegetically mandated switch.
In regards to your “word for wall/moat’ statement, in case you may not be aware, since 1995, Owusu-Antwi’s work has detailedly and conclusively shown what it actually means, and from what I see, all based/derived from what was being said in the exegetical lexical works such as Theological Dictionary of the OT, TwordbookOT, etc. (In passing, since I see you do delve in exegetical works, I recommend such works over your cited BDB.)
(And again, as an advice, lose the quite evident antagonistic attitude if you want any continued or constructive conversation with me. And do know that I would be fully aware of its quite likely/manifest SDA Yahoo groups comments and discussion on my blog and comments priming roots. So don’t feel or think that you are doing me any favor by having a discussion with me... quite to the contrary since I have to go into details here and restate what is obtainable from the proper studying of my posted expositions.)
-
:ROFL: You wrote the stuff for public view not me. Most of it is smoke and I did not expect you or even fathom that you would take what I said to penetrate your character as none other you claimed that tried to help could either. Your wrong on many points and come under the heading of false teachers. yes and your one topic was "MY first visions and dream." After reading your "superior self" the dream finally made sense.who knows but totally off the wall stuff.
I am used to reading spiritual stuff from spiritual led writers and your not one. Your the one to feel sorry for as I never thought another could be as bad as Nebuchadnezzar. but the good news is you might have a chance like Nebuchadnezzar.
I don't feel I wasted my time as it was an experience just to see how twisted one can get and then put it in the hand of 3rd grade level people from the "the superior guru" to follow your program and I think in one place of this grand organization of Superior Bible analyzers you guys want donations and expect to get paid for this. :ROFL: truth is free that does not take a 3 rd grader to understand. God did not leave his church mindless to be overpowered by a guru. Your in this position because you have battled the very best growing up and in the best places. But they were all proven ignorant by you weren't they??..as you state. and no I will not comment with you anymore either as I found what I needed to know.
-
Most glad to hear that you won’t be wasting my time anymore tinka. Your straw-man circular reasoning approach so that you can bubble in your spurious claims and then be able LOL is quite comical to say the least and best. And for someone who is critical of my writing style, your grammar and syntax in your response here is quite atrocious. I can’t even make sense of much of what your are saying. So since ‘you found what you were looking for’ and it would be most foolish on your part to think that I did, and have not, been openly laying it there for people like you to find, then “carry on”....Keep viewing things according to your spiritual “3rd Grader’s view, indeed just as in Isa 28:9-10 and we’ll see how far that will get you. Isa 28:11-13!! You’re side issue and comments here is actually hindering any, actually distinct discussion on this thread’s topic on the 70 Weeks/2300 days, because, as you obviously cannot realize, the interpretation of that prophecy does not depend on directly inspired instruction. Since William Miller’s initial findings right through today, its (SDA) expositor have had to deeply search the Bible and History to arrive at its Biblical and concrete meaning. So your probing “federal case” side show is completely irrelevant and has only served to side track, at least, you. The objective and transparent truth of the prophecy still stands!! When you begin to care about sharing it with Christians who have valid objections to the common SDA view and/or who do not believe at all in EGW, then you’ll just begin to appreciate ‘superior scholarly’ efforts to best interpret and prove it.
...and wherever God has seen necessary to tame my innate spirit of superiority, (-can’t deny my aspirational and effectuated life track record here/now), he has done so in the most effective way, and all so that I can be on, and maintain this present course, particularly in the foreunderstood face of people like you spuriously trying to belittle what I have done and am doing, and LOL, so that, ‘I can get back to the level of those who are suppose to be my superiors....’ Just by your blind response that ‘they have all proven to be right vs. me’, (as if you actually properly read and/or knew the facts in those issues), you self-demonstrate your “sheepish”, blind-led-by-the-blind, spirit of worshipful irrational deference. The obtainable and/or full disclosure fact is that: you just don’t know what you are talking about or (deferentially) defending... I have read in Inspiration of such a: “Who do you think you are!!” stance/attitude before, and the base spirit of type of people who have it.... HA!! I’m certainly not going to begin to deny God’s blessings, guiding, giftings, instructing and favoring in my life just to make you feel better about yourself...
-
Simply mainly recalling off the top of my head, try a few SDA scholars for those who are claiming that Artaxerxes in Ezra 4:7 is Longimanus.
Those scholars are wrong, since their speculations disagree with a plain, unequivocal statement in the testimony of Jesus. Jesus ought to know, you know, since He knew Ezra, Nehemiah, Artaxerxes, Ahashuerus, Cambysses, and Bardiya personally. That's more than either you or I or any of today's scholars can say.
(E.g., SDABC Vol 3) And who else would be ‘the king from whom Jews had come to rebuild Jerusalem’ (Ezra 4:12)??!
Easy. Cyrus. See Is. 44:28; 45:13. Or do you think Isaiah was wrong too?
(And if you are just going to vexatiously and antogonistically, mindlessly quibble as responses, then please don’t waste my time. Study out your responses better before posting/posing them to me.)
Uncalled for and inappropriate. If you're going to attack Jesus' testimony, declare that He didn't know what He was talking about, exalt your own personal opinions above what He had to say, and then respond like that to valid points of concern, go find some other forum to post your skepticism on.
-Ellen White did not have to write a treatise against the Sabbath, she “wrote” how she thought for a while how Bates was in error over the Sabbath.
After the fact she wrote what she THOUGHT. That's different than you proposing that her inspired writings were wrong about the Sabbath.
She then probably openly opposed Bates during that time when he would try to present that truth.
And so to prop up flawed skepticism, you SPECULATE that she PROBABLY opposed the Sabbath in an inspired message.
And it was probably because he did not then try to preach that message widely to “the scattered flock” that she did not correspondingly write a message opposing it.
And thus you assert without evidence that his publishing a tract on the Sabbath did not constitute preaching widely about the Sabbath.
And, technically speaking, the earliest document which contained a (prophetic) writing of EGW was the 1847 Word to the Little Flock pamphlet.
False. The earliest such document was the letter in The Day Star dated 1-24-1846, and then the issue dated 3-14-1846. Then came a broadside dated April 6, 1846. All three of these were before Ellen and James White began to keep the Sabbath in the fall of 1846.
-The fact that EGW switch views on what took place in Christ ascensions between her 3SP account and DA is self-evident.
No it isn't self-evident. And the fact that you fail to acknowledge the possibility that there are multiple explanations suggests that you are predisposed to exalt your personal opinions above a Thus saith the Lord.
Just one point: The first ascension's description could be talking about a general acceptance of Christ's sacrifice, while the second ascension's description is definitely talking about the acceptance of the resurrected representatives of the redeemed.
And for certain, Christ was not wearing the coronet of glory and the royal robe between the two ascensions, so we could be talking about an event that sort of occurred twice, or the earlier description could be taking in what happened at both ascensions.
(cf. Matt 23:35). For me, that does not at all affect her overall inspiration or writing. (nor that of Jesus in that Matt statement, -if it was him who made that error, and not Matthew himself.).
Wow oh wow. And thus you dare to stoop so low as to explicitly and publicly exalt your personal opinions above even the statements of Jesus, without any positive proof that the phrase Matthew said Jesus used, "Zacharias son of Barachias," must be wrong. Would you have declined to take your shoes off your feet at the burning bush?
Again, she was not inerrant nor infallible.
But please remember, neither are you!
In regards to your “word for wall/moat’ statement, in case you may not be aware, since 1995, Owusu-Antwi’s work has detailedly and conclusively shown what it actually means, ....
Then please address the point here if you already have an understanding of what the word means.
(And again, as an advice, lose the quite evident antagonistic attitude if you want any continued or constructive conversation with me.
If you don't want your views opposed, then stop promoting skepticism here. And if you don't care to converse on the topics you raise, then we could ask the moderators to ban you here as you were banned at Maritime.
-
Right, and you probably think you made valid responding points here. They all don’t point to the concrete truth of the matter. I decline wasting time talking to you since you so obviously are misconstruingly, just quibbling to pick a fight with here. Do, believe, think and speculate however you want in your selective exegesis world, I do not have time to do your thinking....
And you think banning me from discussing things with you all is a threat....it has been, and is, a God-sent relief.... i.e., I then certainly don’t have to waste my time responding that what you’ll post....just continue believing in your Laodicean lullabies... I then get a great laugh reading your spurious and endlessly looping/pointless, tire-spinning discussions. Prophecy does need to be accomplished!!
Oh yeah... buy Owusu-Antwi’s book to get that answer.
-
Oh yeah... buy Owusu-Antwi’s book to get that answer.
If Owusu-Antwi's book promotes skepticism, it isn't worth the time or money to get and read.
-
Let's see if we can cover some of NJK's points one at a time.
(E.g., SDABC Vol 3) And who else would be ‘the king from whom Jews had come to rebuild Jerusalem’ (Ezra 4:12)??!
Easy. Cyrus. See Is. 44:28; 45:13. Or do you think Isaiah was wrong too?
The question is whether the Ahashuerus and Artaxerxes of Ezra 4 are the Ahashuerus of Esther and the Artaxerxes of Ezra 7, or Cambyses son of Cyrus and Bardiya, the Magian impostor known as the false Smerdis who claimed to be Smerdis, Cambyses' brother.
Cambyses was on a military campaign far away when he heard that the false Smerdis had taken the throne. He died before he could return. Darius the Persian was one of a group of men who wanted to get to the bottom of what was happening, and who suspected that Smerdis was really Bardiya. They told one of the women in the harem to feel for Smerdis' ears when he came for the night, which she did. She reported back that he had no ears, and then Darius and the others knew that Smerdis was really Bardiya. So they staged a coup and Darius took the throne.
In Ezra 4, the men are building the walls of Jerusalem. Cyrus' decree as recorded by Ezra doesn't mention building city walls, and thus some have proposed that the Artaxerxes of Ezra 4 that stopped the building of the walls is not the false Smerdis, even though PK says that he was, and even though the passage goes on to say that the work ceased until the 2nd year of Darius.
Futurists also point to Cyrus' decree not mentioning building the city or walls to justify ignoring all the decrees until the 20th year of Artaxerxes to start the 70 weeks.
But these contentions are all wrong.
Is. 44:28 That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.
Is. 45:13 I have raised him up in righteousness, and I will direct all his ways: he shall build my city, and he shall let go my captives, not for price nor reward, saith the LORD of hosts.
Thus, according to Isaiah, Cyrus did indeed command the building of the city. And if you think about it, certainly this would have to be the case. The temple contained gold and such. Command the building of a temple filled with treasure and not permit the building of city walls to protect that temple? Wouldn't make sense.
Therefore, the thing to look for to start the 70 weeks is not a decree to build the city walls but a decree that restores the judiciary. And the builders in Ezra 4 were simply doing what Cyrus' decree permitted them to do.
-
I asked NJK whether he thought that Isaiah was wrong too. And he responded that answering such questions was a waste of time.
Note that NJK made the point that we've got to take what the Bible says above what Ellen White says, which of course is true. But then NJK made it clear that he thinks the Bible is wrong too in places, and that perhaps even Jesus Himself was wrong. If NJK was really making the Bible the ultimate authority, I cannot see why he would then try to say that the Bible is wrong.
In reality, what NJK should have done when confronted by Isaiah's testimony that Cyrus had commanded the building of Jerusalem is concede the point that the building of the walls in Ezra 4 cannot be used to justify saying that PK is wrong in identifying Cambyses and the false Smerdis as the Ahashuerus and Artaxerxes in that chapter.
-
NJK PM'ed me. His position on Is. 44 and 45 is that this prophecy that Cyrus would rebuild the city was never fulfilled, and that thus Ezra 4 cannot be referring to Cambyses and the false Smerdis. He maintains that we must give precedence to Ezra 1:1-4 which does not say that Cyrus commanded the building of the city or its walls.
This is easily answered. Compare Ezra 1:1-4 with Ezra 6:1-3. Note the differences between the two quotations from the decree:
- Ezra 1 says that God told Cyrus to build the temple. Ezra 6 does not.
- Ezra 1 calls for the Jews to return to Jerusalem. Ezra 6 does not.
- Ezra 1 calls for the Jews' neighbors to assist them financially in the endeavor. Ezra 6 does not.
- Ezra 6 gives dimensions for the building. Ezra 1 does not.
- Ezra 6 says how many rows of stones the foundations are supposed to be. Ezra 1 does not.
- Ezra 6 says the king is going to pay for some of the expenses. Ezra 1 does not.
- Ezra 6 calls for the return of the vessels that Nebuchadezzar took. Ezra 1 does not.
The only similarity between the two quotations of the decree is the king who gave it, and that the temple was to be rebuilt. Other than that, they appear to be different decrees.
Conclusion? We don't have the entire decree. Ezra 11 quotes part, and Ezra 6 quotes part, but we don't have the entire thing. And thus no one can say with absolute certainty that Cyrus did not command the building of the city. Therefore, in light of what Is. 44 and 45 clearly and unequivocally say, we must conclude that Cyrus did command the building of the city.
Let's not make Cyrus out to be an idiot. He ordered the building of the temple, and the return of gold and silver vessels to the temple. The city needed walls to protect these treasures, and Cyrus certainly realized that.
-
A perfect case in point of your shoddy exegesis, on top of it being devoid, oblivious and/or indifferent of/to concrete historical facts, you need to read a city rebuilding into the Cyrus decree when there is no textual evidence of this at all.
Seems to me that Is. 44 & 45 are Bible texts, and that thus they constitute textual evidence that Cyrus' decree did in fact command the building of the city.
Beyond Isaiah we have 2 Chr., Ezra 1, and Ezra 6. Not sure if there are any other sources that would give us hints as to the content of Cyrus' decree. Given the scarcity of sources, we really ought to include Is. 44 & 45 in the list, especially since doing so supports PK's identification of Ezra 4's Ahashuerus and Artaxerxes as being Cambyses and the false Smerdis.
(1) Your exegesis is quite demonstrably, factually, shallow, shoddy and whimsical. ... E.g., if Jesus Himself made quite harmless id mistake in Matt 25:38 then it shows me that ... (b) he was then indeed in a candid and genuine anger at the Jewish leader ... and thus misspoke on that insignificant detail ... (d) that is all according to the possible humanness involved in the prophetic office which Jesus depended upon for direct revelations from God. ... you are not going by what the text clearly says (i.e., in regards to a slight error) but what you think it should say.
A perfect case in point of your shoddy exegesis, on top of it being devoid, oblivious and/or indifferent of/to concrete historical facts, ... and then having a discussion with you would begin to be worthwhile for me.
... it is you who is building a fictious faith through shoddy and subjective exegesis. My critical approach to Biblical study has no only help me see the full truth ... Continue your afactual, sanctimonious way, and I’ll go by my textually factual approach ... You have been most slyly deceived into thinking that by your sanctimonious and afactual approach that you are doing God’s work, but you are “factually” not and doing a great disservice to the cause of Truth. And as many example s can gloriously show I have always approach God’s word with faith, but unlike your spurious and shallow faith, it is rather a deeper on which, when confronted with a clear inconsistency or error in the Bible or SOP, seek to find out why that is so and the Truth that is found is so much more glorious than your glossingly indifferent hedging. ... There is not an sincere infidel who will be convinced by your mindless and unrealistic “faith” nor “exegesis”. So do ‘check yourself to see if you are in the faith.’
... So at best, it is just your lack of informed knowledge/ignorance that is variously judgementally speaking into these matters.
I think the truth is supposed to be more than intellectual. It is supposed to sanctify, which should lead us to temper our speech, and not pour forth loads of verbal abuse.
As for "you are not going by what the text clearly says, ... but what you think it should say" I never gave an explanation for Mat. 23:35, and thus NJK has no basis for this accusation.
-
Putting down the intellectual capacity of others by inference, direct disparagement, or by use of verbosity meant to impress, in no way impresses, and in no way demonstrates your elevation, or the superiority of your points. Indeed, it can make you and your message appear to be cheap posturing.
-
Wow! The guy just does not get it. I received another PM filled with more rude, pompous remarks. The only other thing I'll say about it concerns the following:
A perfect case in point of your shoddy exegesis, on top of it being devoid, oblivious and/or indifferent of/to concrete historical facts, you need to read a city rebuilding into the Cyrus decree when there is no textual evidence of this at all.
Seems to me that Is. 44 & 45 are Bible texts, and that thus they constitute textual evidence that Cyrus' decree did in fact command the building of the city.
Beyond Isaiah we have 2 Chr., Ezra 1, and Ezra 6. Not sure if there are any other sources that would give us hints as to the content of Cyrus' decree. Given the scarcity of sources, we really ought to include Is. 44 & 45 in the list, especially since doing so supports PK's identification of Ezra 4's Ahashuerus and Artaxerxes as being Cambyses and the false Smerdis.
Though NJK quoted the same basic point from my PM to him, he refused to respond to the point, and resorted to insults yet again. Therefore, I think we can reasonably conclude that he has no answer for the point, and that thus Is. 44 and 45 really do tell us that Cyrus' decree commanded the building of the city, not just the temple.
-
I know one other person like this and they are schizophrenic and even though treated Their symptoms are so engrossed with their self that they go into a fit if you ask how their family is and don't point blank ask them how they are. Then you will hear this same rattle from them. People tried for years to help to explain kindly and there is absolutely no penetrating either and they just don't get it either. It is sad. I cannot understand it. But it is a sickness. They are educated as a journalist and writer. and write the same way. I watched (them) go on public TV and about had a shocked mind when I heard all that was proclaimed. I really don't know what you can do other then medication for them to live in society and deal with obscene characters.
What I read here in case anyone got that far as many many tried to help but negative response admitted throughout about how ignorant everyone was. That is typical symptom of illness. and you all know how genius
Howard Hughes was.
-
NJK just wrote me yet again, and boy is he ticked! He's even threatening to sue for slander and libel. Daryl, did you have this much trouble with the guy?
Seems to me that Ellen White wrote that we aren't to sue our brethren, and if we do, God won't hear our prayers. Does NJK think that Ellen White got that wrong too?
I just can't imagine a jury deciding that it is libelious and slanderous to say that this guy comes across as pompous, arrogant, and rude. He's certainly provided a good bit of evidence to support such an opinion.
By the way, in this latest PM, NJK still refuses to respond to the point about Is. 44 and 45 being evidence regarding the contents of Cyrus' decree. Certainly "... like the infantile “reasonable” reasoning of an 8-year=old = “third grader”!" isn't a response, since these words of his are referring to my conclusion that he doesn't have an answer. Regarding his failure to provide a response, he explicitly said, "And really... my deliberate non-answer of your spurious claim ...."
Based on his admittedly "deliberate non-answer," one is free to form the opinion, absent other evidence, that he really does not have an answer, and therefore has stooped to throwing insults. Of course, there are other possible opinions that one might form, but that certainly is one possibility.
-
Personnel message sent to me also :
You have just been sent a personal message by NJK Project on Advent Talk.
IMPORTANT: Remember, this is just a notification. Please do not reply to this email.
The message they sent you was:
Since you all are cowards and hide behind your spurious “moderating” in order to openly and transparently avoid having to confront and answer the truth then here your answers to your public postings. And I formally warn you that your shielded continued misconstruing, malqauoting and/or explicit libel and slandering of me, my character, my work and my blog/project is actionably most illegal, combined with your “moderating” blocking of my answer. So do consider yourselves from this notice formally, validly and lawfully warned.
That said, my response to your “Re: The 2300 days” thread posting about me:
Murcielago: You can only fancifully wish that I am trying to impress you...’You thought I was altogether like yourselves’. Your even lucky I bother to discuss this topic with you all
Bob Pickle: Oh I got you a long time ago Bob. You will only get it later and much too late. Keep up the “great work”. And really... my deliberate non-answer of your spurious claim ‘must mean that you are absolute right. Great!!! then do vacuously “conclude away” and make my day!! In case you can’t notice that is all like the infantile “reasonable” reasoning of an 8-year=old = “third grader”!
tinka: ‘“Physician” please heal thyself....’
NJK I really believe you are serial "of something" and it is not good. In fact the word "warning" sounds pretty threatening I believe anyone close to you should be on guard. You must be pretty well secluded and to your self as anyone close to you would be seeing that you get help. You cannot be a guru from anyone here. No followers or partakers of your nonsense will provide you worship or aid your self worship. Just calling someone a Physician when you don't know any better is a surmised lie and used this type of surmising all through your book of many avenues with no outlets. Then use scripture words to fit your "serial" thinking. The funniest part of these accusations from you to posters are totally comical as you understand us perfectly and you do get our point and presents an adverse response to your ego which you cannot stand or tolerate. Your book expresses all your strange turmoil. In fact sounds like a case that brought on the movie Sybil with some sort of background that caused this horrific trauma. I am surprised your not "eating" grass !! or are you. Your writing confirms your sickness.
-
A scammer recently tried to scam my son. When I caught her she threatened to report me to the FBI. Not an unusual reaction from that type when they are unmasked. People who try hiding emptiness behind a facade of verbosity are no different.
-
2 more Pm messages
From: "Advent Talk" <Admin@AdventTalk.com>
Subject: New Personal Message: Response to your Posting about me
Date: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 8:38 PM
You have just been sent a personal message by NJK Project on Advent Talk.
IMPORTANT: Remember, this is just a notification. Please do not reply to this email.
The message they sent you was:
Keep up the slandering tinka....it is all been duly documented!
Are you nuts? you come on here and slandered SDA, EGW, Scripture and all that tried to help you that you so arrogantly wrote for everyone to see and determine- you got a big problem. OH, I believe you are and maybe dangerous with that tantrum characteristic especially read out of your book. You don't even know when to be embarrassed and your superiority and self exaltation is obnoxious. Most of this discernment comes from reading the book called "yourself".