Sda -

Sorry about that -- click this
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0125_050125_chimeras.html

Mice with human brain cells I think is the first thing on this next list

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/003647.html
.

 

If the intent is to claim that Uriah Smith made mistakes - we all agree!

:applause:

 

James White and Ellen White differred on key subjects - like the Trinity. He was not in favor of it. SDAs never claim James White had the gift of Prophecy.

Uriah Smith of course had huge differences and debates with Ellen White.

But if your point is to find places where James and Uriah were in error - feel free to pursue your list.

in Christ,

Bob

 

The Bible says in Gen 6 that "all flesh" had "corrupted its way" before the Lord - preflood.

The Bible says in Gen 6 that the people of God - intermarried with the wicked. (Paul calls that being "unequally yoked")

God says that violence resulted.

If you go back to my first post here
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1513014&postcount=2

- you will see the key "ABC"s of the subject of the gift of prophecy.

Prophetic statements are not limited to "paraphrasing the Bible" - as you will notice after reading the texts given in that post.

For example - If she had said "God has shown me in vision that there was no problem with man or beast just before the flood - all was peaceful and tranquill" we would have had a huge problem as we compared that to Genesis 6.

Just stating the obvious so far.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Hints:

Click
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1513661&postcount=27

Read.

And have a nice day.

 

So in the 1John 4 test

One of the tests applied is Is 8:20 "agreement" with the Bible.

Which is why I compared the statements in Gen 6 about what happened before the flood - with one small section of what Ellen White claimed to have been told about that time period.

In 2Cor 11:1-4 Paul claims to have been "caught up to the third heaven" and to have been shown things that it is not proper to relate to others.

He adds nothing more. So nothing there one way or the other to judge Paul.

So if that were the ONLY thing we ever had from Paul - we would not know if he was for real -- or had just said it on his own.

Fortunately we have a lot of things from Paul that confirm he was given divine inspiration.

In the same way - I showed from Gen 6 that Ellen White's very detailed statement on pre-flood conditions is consistent with the more general statements of Genesis 6 - but they certainly do not give the level of detail on the subject of "all flesh being corrupted" that she does.

So is she right or wrong? From that statement alone - you cannot tell. All you know is that it does not contradict Genesis 6.

The actual TEST then has to do with the many other statetments she makes that have actual doctrinal testable value in terms of testing them against the Bible.

Adventist doctrine did not come from Ellen White - historically. And even to this day Adventists do not quote Ellen White as some kind of proof for our doctrine. (Hint -- attend one of our 28 Fundamental Beliefs evangelistic series some time to see).

However over the years Ellen White did claim to have visions related to almost all of our doctrines - showing the importance of those Bible truths as it played out in the history of the world (or in some other aspects).

Thus - her 50,000 pages of manuscript easily cover direct Bible doctrines that CAN be tested.

Why you pick these little obtuse fringe examples is then somewhat baffling.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Where is Dr. Moreau when you need him?

 

What is baffling is your defense and the down playing of these obvious errors.

 

let's just cut to the chase...there's no more 'Prophets'...the last 'Prophet' was that of St. John the Baptist linking the period of prophecy in the OT with Jesus Christ, who delivered the fullness or fulfillment of the law...

I believe the SDA's wrongly attribute the term "Prophet" to Ellen...the term 'Prophet' itself is generally reserved for the OT figures...but on the other hand, this isn't to say the spirit of prophecy is dead in the Church...there's many examples of saints receiving prophetic dreams or visions...BUT no new doctrine or theological thoughts have came from such visions...

What has been revealed to the Church has already been revealed...there's no new revelations...

In XC
-

 

And yet prophets are listed in 1Cor 12 as being one of the valid gifts of the Spirit who "gives to each one as He wills" according to Paul.

Eph 4 is explicit is explaining that the gifts - including prophecy as it turns out - are valid until the end of the age.

Then we might just be arguing semantics.

By the definition of Numbers 12 - according to God - "if there is a prophet among you I will make Myself known to them by a dream or a vision".

You seem to be saying "yes well - that does not mean we have to call them a prophet".

My intent is the substance of the point - not whether or not you want to use a given label or term.

No new doctrine (nor any doctrine) can be based on a non-canonical prophetic message.

And the Bible was completed 2000 years ago.

The apostle John lived long after "John the baptizer" and had revelations.

So also did Paul.

So also did non-Bible prophets like Steven and Agabus and the "everyone at Corinth" who in 1Cor 14 were meeting each week - coming to church with a "revelation".

There is a lot of scripture that does not go along with your POV in that case of "no new revelation".

Hence John does not say "reject the spirits" or "reject the prophets" but rather TEST them.

That is why Paul says "DO not quench the Spirit and do not reject prophetic messages".

in Christ,

Bob

 

The doctrine in the church is that 1Cor12 is a valid NT text - pointing God's teaching on spiritual gifts.

Just as "EACH ONE" in 1Cor 4 was said by Paul to have a "revelation" so also Ellen White happens to be "yet another" example of that spiritual gift - as was Agabus (yet "another" NT example of a non-Bible writing prophet) and Anna (yet "another" NT example of a non-Bible writing prophet).

Trying wrench the subject around so that Agabus or the 1Cor 14 saints that met with "EACH" one having a revelation -- are all examples of creating "new doctrine" or doctrine based on "the Word of Agabus" never worked in the NT - and still does not work as though it were a "funny kind of exegesis" today.

I thought this was the obvious part.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Some supporting details in your post would be helpful just then.

in Christ,

Bob

====================
Wishing all a happy and restful Sabbath today!