Troubleshooter

William Miller originally believed Christ was crucified in 33 AD…
…but he changed his position to the 31 AD date prior to 1843/1844.

Question: Why did William Miller change his mind?
Answer: William Miller changed the basis for his calculations to a Karaite luni-solar calendar.

Question: How did changing to a Karaite luni-solar calendar make 31 AD a viable date?
Answer: On a luni-solar calendar every Passover falls on a weekly Sabbath day.


In the Karaite system, the months start with the first appearance of the new moon…
…”In the first day ye shall have an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein.” Lev 23:7…
…the first day of the month was the first weekly Sabbath…
…then six work days were counted until the next Sabbath on the eighth day of the month...
...and the 15th, the 22nd and the 29th were also weekly Sabbath’s.


The weekly Sabbaths in the Karaite calendar were determined…
…by the sighting of the New Moon each month…
…and not by a perpetual weekly cycle.


The lunar year began with the month Nisan…
…the 1st day of Nisan was calculated from the first sighting of the New Moon following the Barley Harvest…
…the Passover lamb was killed on the 14th Nisan…
…and eaten that night, the night of the full moon…
…this was the beginning of 15th Nisan a lunar weekly Sabbath.


So on the Karaite calendar every Passover was a Sabbath.


This creates for Seventh-day Adventism a Sabbath paradox?

Seventh-day Adventists are the only group who support the 31 AD crucifixion date...
...it is the basis of the prophetic scheme that establishes their October 22 1844 origin.

The Karaite calendar is the only objective reason to support the 31 AD crucifixion date.

The Karaite luni-solar calendar weekly cycles do not coincide…
…with the continuous successive weekly cycle of the Julian/Gregorian calendars.


The Paradox...

Seventh-day Adventists lay claim to an origin calculated using the Karaite calendar…
…whose weekly Sabbath’s are determined month by month…
…but maintain a weekly Sabbath determined by the successive Julian/Gregorian calendar.

__________________
- Jesus said, "In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world." John 16:33 -

BOLSHY

the whole Karaite luni system is exactly this : lunacy

the orthodox Jewish calender an its determination is correct and pre-dates the karaite loony system!!

__________________

Troubleshooter

Lunacy or not the Karaite calendar was and remains the basis on which the Seventh-day Adventist church makes its claims to historical legitimacy...
...and remains the basis for 1844.

Adventism has no other reason to prefer the 31 AD crucifixion date...
...than to appeal to the Karaite calendar.

__________________
- Jesus said, "In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world." John 16:33 -

peg

So, after reading this thread along with the attached links,
The bottom line is that either the Sabbath that SDA cherishes is not the 7th day of creation

-OR-

Their 2300-day time line doesn't work...
They can't have both!

Furthermore, they have known this all along, the largest body of documentation residing at Andrews University.

Pegg

__________________
Then...Jesus asked them a question: "What do you think about the Messiah? Whose Son is He?"
Matt. 22:41-42

Troubleshooter

That's a good summary Pegg...
...the SDA church has known since at least 1938.

On November 7, 1938, the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists appointed a Research Committee to investigate discrepancies in calendation.

The committee was comprised of SDA luminaries...

The Chair was Elder L. E. Froom, Secretary Dr. Lynn Harper Wood and committee members Dr. M. L. Andreasen, Professor M. E. Kern, Professor W. Homer Teesdale, Professor Albert W. Werline, Elder F. C. Gilbert and Miss Grace Amadon.

The report was delivered July, 9, 1939...
...present were all the General Conference members available, plus all the Union Presidents in the U.S., Bible teachers, Ministers and many others...
...the report started at 9:30 A.M. and the meeting ended about 10:00 P.M.

It was not done in a corner...
...and all the issues were well understood...
...and the implications realized...
...but it was decided not to trouble the church with it.

Who would have thought it would come down to...
...either the Sabbath...
...or the Sanctuary doctrine.

__________________
- Jesus said, "In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world." John 16:33 -

Sophia7

That sounds a lot like what happened in 1919 regarding EGW. They understood the issues and realized the implications, but they decided not to trouble the church with them.

__________________
"Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God" (Hebrews 12:2).

Troubleshooter

Arthur Patrck has a good summary of the 1919 Conference here...
http://sdanet.org/atissue/white/patrick/campbell-review-1919.htm

I have had only one current SDA comment on this thread...
...do they have nothing to say in defence of their Sabbath paradox?

__________________
- Jesus said, "In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world." John 16:33 -

standard_output

So what you're really trying to say is that the 2300 years still ended somewhere in the mid 1800s?

Troubleshooter

The text to which you refer is Daniel 8:14.

The Geneva Bible is quite close to the Hebrew...

Daniel 8:14 "And he answered me, Vnto the euening and the morning, two thousand and three hundreth: then shall the Sanctuarie be clensed."

The Hebrew word for day -'yowm' is not in the text...
...although it is used many times elsewhere in Daniel...
...and as there is no 'evening morning' equals a year principle it can't mean years.

There is simply no reason to apply 2300 'evening mornings' to anything that happened in the 1800's.

__________________
- Jesus said, "In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world." John 16:33 -

Tree of Life ©

A More Fundamental Bottom Line . . .














Dear Peggy,

I certainly agree with you that one may feel like puking when having to deal with a real man or woman who knows well the truth about something and the importance of applying it in real life but who is unwilling to apply it and who therefore does not apply it. When I realize such things about someone or even about a group of such ones I first of all ask myself: “To what extent am I doing likewise? To what extent am I contributing of my powers unto such a state of being?” To the extent that I then realize that I am responsible for giving of my strengths unto such proceedings I then carefully consider how best to take responsibility for withdrawing my portion of such actions that should not be. Learning the ropes for doing this is, as I have found, sometimes a trying and difficult path in many respects, but, in the end, I’ve found that it is always well worth it. Having had by now a number of such experiences in my life I more and more realize that others may be going through similar experiences but in re to other specifics in life of which I may not be aware and which accordingly I am unable to appreciate, especially while seeing before my eyes only the unwillingness of such to pursue in their lives the same specific particulars as I may have been struggling with for years before finally overcoming…

Seeing that helps me somewhat in understanding in principle their apparent resistance and where they may be coming from. I stand humbled. I can begin seeing things a little better from their position. I do not have to give of my powers in support of such in their lives as I find fault with, but I can sympathize with their position and do my best in showing empathy. I can do my best in meeting them where they are.

In all of this I very much believe in proceeding along the lines given us in Matthew 18:15-20.

One thing of importance in all of this is to look at each living being separately while recognizing that only living beings have the ability to think and consider things. Organizations, churches, corporations, and States do not have a brain and cannot think, can they? Thus, I cannot blame someone for errors committed by a non-living, non-thinking entity upon a living breathing being who is doing his or her best in learning the ropes, that is, the real truth of the matter, while yet being blind to exactly how they contribute unto such errors. Yet, I do have a responsibility for sharing of the light given me to the extent someone is willing to accept it. God does not force His light upon any one among us. Neither should I. If I sometimes try too hard to share of such values as I have been given, I typically find that it is counterproductive and has the opposite effect. It pays to be humble. Yet, it is not easy to see one’s most loved ones continue in sufferings that are obviously – to me - due to wrong choices and an unwillingness to change. Yet, as a physician I have had to learn that lesson the hard way many times over, and not only re my patients…



So what is the real bottom line?

I for one don’t believe that the bottom line is whether we are stained by the guano of one bird or by the guano of another bird. The bottom line, rather, is whether or not we are willing to be washed from such stains as comes to our minds from time to time. Choosing to hide our ignorance and errors behind a cloak of mystery, be such a cloak ever so impressive, will lead us nowhere but six feet under… that is, in the direction some birds are said to hide their heads when confronted by things they may fear…

It took some of the remnant of the Millerite movement two years of eager bible studies before discovering the Seventh-day Sabbath… It took those same Sabbath keepers another ten years before discovering that the beginning of Scriptural days, e.g. the Sabbath, begins with sunset… It took Ellen White two or three days more than the rest of the church to accept this truth after it was clearly presented before them. Yet, she did so immediately once she was made to understand her own resistance… It took another hundred and sixty years before I myself became aware of the importance and priority of the word “Remember…” as associated with all true Sabbath keeping… And only recently have I become aware of the fact that per the Scriptural way of reckoning days, the new Scriptural day actually begins before the old day is fully gone. That is, there is an overlap as signified by the rising light upon the hills and mountains and by the darkness creeping in…

Likewise, after William Miller’s discoveries re the 2,300 evenings and mornings it took another hundred and sixty years before I became aware of these issues to the point of finding more viable – and more beautiful and perfect - alternatives than such admirable Bereans as our beloved Seventh-day Adventist pioneers were able to discover after long and arduous studies, studies without which we would not be where we are today…

Praise the Lord for guiding each of us ever onwards into His truths,

Tree of Life ©

Troubleshooter

If you actually take the time to read through the thread you will realize that this has already been covered.

In 1883 the SDA church had a special General Conference committee examine the whole issue I have presented in this thread...
...and they decided not to trouble the church with it...
...not because a Lunar determined Sabbath was incorrect but it would have been too hard to implement a lunar calendar.

Even though the issue was acknowledged they continued to preach that the 'Mark of the Beast' was Sunday worship instead of Sabbath worship.

This is a serious contradiction.

Seventh-day Adventists since that time have not been keeping a biblical Sabbath any more than Roman Catholics.

__________________
- Jesus said, "In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world." John 16:33 -

Tree of Life ©

More Exact References Needed in Support of Your Contention, Please…







Dear TroubleShooter,

I certainly agree with you that if indeed your contentions are true, then such actions as you are attributing to the 1883 special General Conference committee of the SDA Church, "is a serious contradiction" and, also if so, "Seventh-day Adventists since that time have not been keeping a biblical Sabbath any more than Roman Catholics."

I've been looking eagerly and extensively within the references provided within this thread, but so far I've been unable to find anything in support of your quoted words above. The references given are voluminous and it is certainly easy for me to be missing something...

Perhaps you'd care to give me - and any other among the readers of this thread - a more exact reference to each of the following:

1. Where exactly do you find that the 1883 special General Conference committee found Scriptural support for the Lunar Sabbath, or even that they found evidence that the cyclical Sabbath kept by Seventh-day Adventists today is not the same as the one given in Genesis 2:2-3?

2. Where exactly do you find support for your contention that said 1883 committee "decided not to trouble the church with..." any findings of theirs such as I am asking for in question #1 above?

3. Where exactly do you find support for your statement that the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, by and through said 1883 committee, determined that "it would have been too hard to implement a lunar calendar," that is, a change called for by a finding of theirs such as I am asking for in my question #1 above?


Shabbat Shalom,
Tree of Life ©

Tree of Life ©

The One and Only Way to Get to Higher Ground. . .





Dear TroubleShooter,


Don’t forget that a thing that is only true in part is wholly false, that is, a lie!

On the other hand, one must always remember that upon discovering one’s former greater errors and falsehoods and while in the process of being cleansed from and sanctified one may still be stained by guano, and although one is responsible for learning as best one can, one cannot be held responsible for not acting in accord with such as one has not yet learnt while in an honest pursuit of the truth! That is the one route of true salvation!

As before, I am entering my comments as red font within your quoted post below:

willy

What a strange irony that those who adhere to a plagiarizing false prophet begin with a lecture on the basis of truth.

Even in your comments are the works based ideology of Dear Ellen, the one true route to salvation is Jesus Christ, on this you should supremely hope, because if you think salvation is a theology test then the best SDA's can hope for is a pass/fail mode of grading.

In the grand scheme of things 1Cor 4 says we are the holders of the mysteries of the church, one of those mysteries is the incarnation of God into human flesh, what an interesting thought, SDA's are unable to explain the person who is their salvation but can define calender dates and types through all of history....

In any event it's nice to see a new face even if it's only to serve as an example of where SDA theology ends up.

__________________
Virtually all heresy's are stopped by a knowledge of who Christ is.
Christ as fully human does not allow for his humanity controlling his divinity.

Tree of Life ©

Thoughts through the Mind of One Incarnation of God into Flesh and Blood...

and a Little Re Being Able to "Count to Three..."













Dear Willy,


I cannot know who all you are referencing in your quoted post above, but no doubt your post is being read by many as a reference to me, or don't you think so? Yet, I for one do not reckon myself as 'adhering' to Ellen Gould White even though I do find great pleasure and great values in considering very carefully the truth value of the words Sister White is sharing with us all through her works. Indeed, I even hesitate to make the connection by thought between your words, as smitten by a host of such 'scoffers' as Peter is giving reference to in his second epistle (2 Peter 3:3,) "a plagiarizing false prophet," and between that very special Daughter of God, our Sister, who never called herself a prophet and who closely adhered to the then current practice of freely copying works of other authors without necessarily giving reference to them or to their works. After all, it is the truth value itself that counts, not any power given such words or passages by popular adherence unto manmade authorities, isn't it? - And isn't such popular adherence the very essence of such as TroubleShooter is referencing by his word 'anathema' in his post above?

That having been said, I recognize that it is unlikely that you will find value in things written by Ellen, should I happen from time to time to copy thoughts or words that she and other great thinkers have had in their minds before us.

Thus, let's now move forwards in pursuit of some things more directly connected with the words of him whom we recognize by the name 'Jesus Christ, our Savior.' Consider these words of his:

Why is Jesus in his use of the words "the signs of the times" using plural and not the singular if indeed his intent was to give reference to nothing but the one sign of Jonas, which sign you also seem to give reference to in your brief little rep note to me that I so much treasure? That is, your words "It would seem that with all your study of dates you could count to three, just read your Friday crucifixion page, it was horrible." (Are you, by your words "your Friday crucifixion page" giving reference to this page of mine?: adamoh.org/TreeOfLife.lan.io/NTCh/TimingOfTheEventsOfThePaschalPesachWeek.htm or else treeoflife.uhostfull.com/TreeOfLife.lan.io/NTCh/TimingOfTheEventsOfThePaschalPesachWeek.htm )

Is it, per chance, that, seeing my reference to a Friday crucifixion you automatically assume, without reading any further into my studies as published on the web, that the resurrection and the opening of the tomb was an event the undoubtedly took place at dawn of a Sunday - and not, as I have shown as based upon the best among the extant Greek (Textus Receptus) and Hebrew (Shem Tov's Hebrew Matthew) New Testament manuscripts, an event that occurred at sunset of a Monday night?

Perhaps you'd care to search for and find some pearls of value re this particular in another web page of mine addressing this very item? That is, the sign of Jonas, one sign among many referenced by Jesus' words quoted above? For you that do, here's the link: adamoh.org/TreeOfLife.lan.io/IFoundMannah/3Days&3NightsInThatOrder.htm or else treeoflife.uhostfull.com/TreeOfLife.lan.io/IFoundMannah/3Days&3NightsInThatOrder.htm

If upon considering that page of mine while undoubtedly you do "count to three" in more ways than one, you find yourself recognizing a taste for more "signs of the times," then perhaps you'd care to consider also to what extent there might be for us saving value, this is, 'salvation' inherent likewise in the words of the prophet Daniel...

... words referenced also by our Savior in his references to Daniel (Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14) and as considered also within this other web page of mine?: adamoh.org/TreeOfLife.wan.io/OTCh/Centuries1to7BCE/GateWayToDanielsPropheciesAndOTHistoryFromAboutHisTime.htm or else treeoflife.uhostfull.com/TreeOfLife.wan.io/OTCh/Centuries1to7BCE/GateWayToDanielsPropheciesAndOTHistoryFromAboutHisTime.htm[Please remove any spaces out of my URLs! Such spaces aren't mine.]


Upon this very special day in commemoration of our Creator, given as it is unto all of us by our Creator to enjoy and be blessed by forever, if only we choose to thus accept it as one gift of Salvation among many such special gifts, let us open up one of his presents and enjoy the contents - lest otherwise "those mysteries" of God will remain hidden to us forever while we remain with nothing but the sign given by God unto Cain... The one who made a sacrifice of his own design and making, and unto which sacrificial gift was tied no natural consequence of blessing such as was tied to the act, that is, the sacrifice, of his brother Abel.


Happy non-Lunar Sabbath,

Tree of Life ©

willy

Complexity of thought and word is like the tall grass, it feeds the wildebeest and hides the loin.

Since most of the source material Ellen STOLE from is still available, would in not be of more profit to actually read what the original author had to say.

Edersheim in his comments on the Garden of Eden commented that the only place Adam could sin was the tree of good and evil. His message was theologically sound and well considered, then your prophet comes along and "borrows" on his idea and adds a second concept of sabbath, being a theological ignoramus she fails to consider the idea that adding the sabbath to the concept of original sin totally voids the idea.

Edersheim being a converted Jew to Christianity knew full well such verses as there was no law from Adam to Moses and developed his garden theology in compliance to those concepts.

As for your other sabbath considerations, it seems odd you link the Hebrew rest for released slaves to creation, the verb shavath is found in Genesis, it is not the same noun sabbath that the command is made from.

The single day of rest God took as a signature single event, He did not rest the following week as you wrongfully assume, when viewed as a sign it points to Him as creator not the day, SDA's are doing what all pagan religions do they worship the created.

You mention comfort from Ellen, this thought comes from a near fatal blindness as to the quality and accuracy of her works, I have read all of the conflict of the ages series at least five times in my life with each time thinking I had some glorious insight.

What a sad thing to find out that historically and theologically she was way off and not even close to a sound theological truth, in most likely one of your favorite volumes "Desire of Ages" she unashamedly places Christ in temptation and with in the possibility of failure, and I bet you don't even have an idea how insidiously evil this concept is,
she a woman who claims to have met Christ in vision, amd yet reduces Him to a parrot who can only save the world by repeating scripture,
(thank god Jesus knew his memory verse.)

Have you ever considered the fact that God in the flesh had greater thoughts and power than SAtan, and that Ellen was embarassinlg incorrect as to why Christ answered like He did?

As for your Daniel references please look and see what the general Christian community says about it, virtually no one takes the force fit adaptation thatSDA's do, it's simply unheard of in general theological circles, J Vernon McGee offers a great overview of the chapter that complies with the consensus of dispensational thought.

__________________
Virtually all heresy's are stopped by a knowledge of who Christ is.
Christ as fully human does not allow for his humanity controlling his divinity.

Tree of Life ©

Dear Willy,

Please consider my thoughts re yours, as found in red font in my quote below:



Shabbat Shalom,

Tree of Life (c)

willy

When people offer such responses it greatly reduces their credibility in my mind, the issues of deception and falling for a package of lies are of far more import than the coincidental spelling of words, such things are but distractions.

In other words it's nice to believe in the assembling of "truths" by our special prophet, actually considering the implications of those truths by various authors is difficult and unnecessary when "we" have a special interpreter.

What theologians such as Edersheim understood was that as a literal command don't eat it was the only test of loyalty, Dear Ellen also grasped this concept at least partially, then for her own purposes added the sabbath.

This faulty mental process is reflected in both yours and her thoughts, the test was don't eat, that single command was the test, there was not truth to be found in the tree, it was not as Satan and apparently you claim to have some truth mixed in with it's promise of death, what you have just done is reiterate the lie of Satan, and I bet you thought you were just being wise.

As a second and equally important point, the covenant was not to eat, and you will have dominion of the earth.
It was not don't eat and keep the sabbath, if such were the case then the law Paul spoke of would have been in place, but such is not the case as scripture clearly states.

This distortion is required because Dear Ellen and those who edit her books knew that scripture does not allow for ten commandment law before the exodous, so to men like Edershiem, Ellen needed to add made up doctrines which conflict with the sound principles they espoused.

It appears to be quite clear that studing the different covenants has not been your strong suit, it sounds as though you think the Mosaic covenant was somehow connected to Adam, there are several passages that indicate that the covenant made with Israel was specific to Israel, but as we know if you knew that you would not be an SDA.

__________________
Virtually all heresy's are stopped by a knowledge of who Christ is.
Christ as fully human does not allow for his humanity controlling his divinity.

Tree of Life ©

Dear Willy,


Upon reviewing your recent communication with me and others I am being reminded of an experience of mine years ago when I first began studying organic chemistry at the University:

Having been brought up as a Seventh-day Adventist in a ditto community and transferring to a worldly educational institution I had no idea what I was in for re my new friends in college.

Having decided not to be prejudiced about who and what they were all about I decided to accept their invitation to a weekend party of theirs. I knew that they were making their own refreshments… They had been requesting all in our class to contribute some of the 98% alcohol we were using in lab, but having never before attended a drinking party I did not understand the implications of that.

When I first arrived at the party everyone was sober and my first impression was that we were all going to have a pleasant and enjoyable evening together, sharing valuable thoughts upon which we could all continue to grow in life.

Unfortunately it wasn’t long until we sat down at the table and the first drinks were being served… I very quickly noticed how dull the conversation turned and before long I left the party. It goes without saying that I never tasted any of their alcoholic beverages.

Well, I never attended one of those parties of theirs again… There was, and is, nothing of value in such for me…



What I cannot tell for sure from my point of view is whether you are drunk on similar beverages as my fellow students at university were, whether you are drunk on such wine as is being referenced in Revelation 14:8, or both…

On the other hand, being well familiar with the principle inherent in “it’s all in the eyes of the beholder” and likewise the words of our Savior as recorded in Matthew 7:3-5 and Luke 6:41-42, I shall choose at this point to withdraw for the time being from this dialog with you, while doing, as best I can learn how, as Noah did per the Hebrew within Genesis 6:8, “And Noah found beauty in the eyes of Yahweh.” That is, upon beholding the reality of that which is what it is and the ultimate beginnings of each and any particular, as given by our Creator, I may learn also, as Noah did, the reality of whom I am myself, my own weaknesses and my total dependence upon my Creator for any insights into any and all truths and insights…

So, in the end, whether it’s me or you, I must humbly beg for the witness of another, first of all from my Father and ultimate Source, him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

Fare well, Willy! I wish you only the best! And please, no offense! It could be me... and the three fingers pointing back...



Peace, and with a prayer,

Tree of Life ©

willy

It must be difficult to actually consider ones religion and see it is at best incoherent and haphazard.

In general when a person accuses another of some behavior it is a reflection of their own mindset, such is the case with your posts, I attempted to show the false nature of your prophet by citing an example of her plagiarizing and addition to a sound concept.

Namely the placement of Mosaic law in the garden of Eden, Paul was emphatic when he said there was no law from Adam to Moses, since this concept has been well discussed out side the world of Adventisum it seems strange to me that you would relate such principles to drunkenness, it does in retrospect make perfect sense, after all I am dialogging with a person who by proxy thinks phrenology was a valid science, and that personal sexual behaviors cause all manner of illness and blindness.

You didn't seem capable of answering the most basic of theological concepts, and went straight to the typical SDA variant accuse the opposition of being some form of evil.

Nice change from the norm, usually it's that we hate and are evil and so should not be spoken to, with me it's being a drunk, a charge no person who knows me would ever consider, so you are correct for the most part except that all the fingers are pointing at yourself.

__________________
Virtually all heresy's are stopped by a knowledge of who Christ is.
Christ as fully human does not allow for his humanity controlling his divinity.

Elffinagain

Just the Mosaic law came later.

Noachide Laws. Though the first man and his wife, Adam and Eve, were commanded to observe them, they emerged fully only after Noah had survived the flood that wiped away violent sinners whose wrongdoings had engulfed the world in his time. The ancestors of the Jewish people were also commanded in them until they were given the whole Torah at Mount Sinai, and they were then reaffirmed through Moses for all the other nations.

willy

Mosaic law was not given to all the other nations it was given to Israel and Israel only,

Deut 4:7 “For what great nation is there that has God so near to it, as the LORD our God is to us, for whatever reason we may call upon Him? 8 And what great nation is there that has such statutes and righteous judgments as are in all this law which I set before you this day?

19 He declares His word to Jacob,
His statutes and His judgments to Israel.
20 He has not dealt thus with any nation;
And as for His judgments, they have not known them.

4 “ Remember the Law of Moses, My servant,
Which I commanded him in Horeb for all Israel,

13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

The point I am making is that Ellen White and possibly you are incorrect if you place Mosaic law in the garden of Eden, Paul says that Adam's sin was a direct violation of a command, the introduction of Mosaic principles beginning with Abraham or more specifically Jacob, were not codified laws.

I think it would also be incorrect to claim Adam was under any form of Noahatic law, Adam was in dominion, he could kill whom he chose and be guiltless the same way a king could, Adam's command (law) was do not eat, there were no other inclusions in that restriction.

In specific response to this line of reasoning are the two reasons why God gave the sabbath, creation was one, but the other was slavery.

God's reason of authority to give rest was not needed or required as SDA's claim, Adam was in a sin free state and if any man could be said to be free it was him, it was not until the advent of slavery that the idea of rest became important, what SDA's and others of their ilk don't seem to understand is the idea that to claim a needed rest in the garden is to claim an in-perfection in the creation, the requirement of rest and communion both imply a need for such things and therefore signify a lack thereof, this is a projection of man's current sinful weak and disconnected state upon the perfect and fully connected Adam.

__________________
Virtually all heresy's are stopped by a knowledge of who Christ is.
Christ as fully human does not allow for his humanity controlling his divinity.

Kevin Morgan

The Spirit of Prophecy Volume One (1870), page 34, paragraph 2

The angels cautioned Eve not to separate from her husband in her employment; for she might be brought in contact with this fallen foe. If separated from each other, they would be in greater danger than if both were together. The angels charged them to closely follow the instructions God had given them in reference to the tree of knowledge; for in perfect obedience they were safe, and this fallen foe could then have no power to deceive them. God would not permit Satan to follow the holy pair with continual temptations. He could have access to them only at the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Quote:

Edersheim being a converted Jew to Christianity knew full well such verses as there was no law from Adam to Moses and developed his garden theology in compliance to those concepts. As for your other sabbath considerations, it seems odd you link the Hebrew rest for released slaves to creation, the verb shavath is found in Genesis, it is not the same noun sabbath that the command is made from. The single day of rest God took as a signature single event, He did not rest the following week as you wrongfully assume, when viewed as a sign it points to Him as creator not the day, SDA's are doing what all pagan religions do they worship the created. You mention comfort from Ellen, this thought comes from a near fatal blindness as to the quality and accuracy of her works, I have read all of the conflict of the ages series at least five times in my life with each time thinking I had some glorious insight. What a sad thing to find out that historically and theologically she was way off and not even close to a sound theological truth, in most likely one of your favorite volumes "Desire of Ages" she unashamedly places Christ in temptation and with in the possibility of failure, and I bet you don't even have an idea how insidiously evil this concept is, she a woman who claims to have met Christ in vision, amd yet reduces Him to a parrot who can only save the world by repeating scripture, (thank god Jesus knew his memory verse.) Have you ever considered the fact that God in the flesh had greater thoughts and power than SAtan, and that Ellen was embarassinlg incorrect as to why Christ answered like He did? As for your Daniel references please look and see what the general Christian community says about it, virtually no one takes the force fit adaptation thatSDA's do, it's simply unheard of in general theological circles, J Vernon McGee offers a great overview of the chapter that complies with the consensus of dispensational thought.

__________________

willy

Thank you I am familiar with the quote, have you considered the ridiculous nature of it?
Eve must now be glued to Adam's side or else the whole world would fall, how was this to work for the endless ages?

Of course the comments of Ellen are but speculation, she claims the instruction was given to "them" this is incorrect it was given to Adam only, she also said that Satan had the power to deceive Adam, yet scripture says Adam was not deceived, so apparently Satan did not have this power no matter where Adam was, she also adds perfect obedience, this also was not the case they need only do one thing and it was a broad command that was easily kept, don't go near the tree.

What is so typical is the entire idea of God saves those who save themselves,
this anti grace thought process is manifested with predictable regularity in all she wrote.
There was no need for perfect obedience as if it required special rigor not to eat, Ellen relates the keeping of the Torah to the tree.

__________________
Virtually all heresy's are stopped by a knowledge of who Christ is.
Christ as fully human does not allow for his humanity controlling his divinity.

Kevin Morgan

Whatever you think of the nature of the statement, you mistakenly built your case on Ellen White's having taken it from Edersheim. All the rest of your statement was predicated on that assumption.

The dates of her statement (1870) and of Edersheim's publication (1883) tell us you have made a grave mistake.

Unfortunately, Willy, you frequently build your case against Ellen White on a faulty assumption.

Would it not be better to simply graciously acknowledge ...

I made a mistake.

__________________

willy

What seems to be eluding you is that conceptually Ellen's quote of your posting is in conflict with her ideas in the conflict of the ages series, IF Adam and Eve could only sin at the tree, then it would not be possible to sin by breaking a second command as she claims was possible by the presence of a sabbath order.

As for you admitting you made a mistake, I'll happily acknowledge it.

__________________
Virtually all heresy's are stopped by a knowledge of who Christ is.
Christ as fully human does not allow for his humanity controlling his divinity.

Kevin Morgan

Perhaps you misunderstand her point. Satan was not allowed to approach them at any other place than the tree. God warned them to stay away from it. Had they listened, Satan would have not been able to tempt them.

Whose claim is it that Ellen White borrowed, in 1870, a statement from Edersheim that wouldn't be published until 1883?

I appreciate your backhanded acknowledgement of her gift of prophecy, but wouldn't it be more gracious to simply admit that you made a mistake?

I still consider you to be a friend, but your turning an opportunity to acknowledge the obvious into a dig, demonstrates an unwillingness to deal with reality and poses an impediment to effective dialogue.

__________________

jaman

Kevin & Willy the tree was in the garden that they had to take care of where did God command Adam not to go near it?

willy

It was not I who posted or believe that non-sense of Ellen, I am well aware of what scripture teaches on the subject, minus all the made up additions of Ellen.

__________________
Virtually all heresy's are stopped by a knowledge of who Christ is.
Christ as fully human does not allow for his humanity controlling his divinity.

DrPatti

Where do you find that in Scripture?
Where do you find that in Scripture?

Where do you find that in Scripture?

__________________
"But he said to me, 'My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.' Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me."

Don't let anybody steal your joy!

Kevin Morgan

__________________

DrPatti

What's to misunderstand?
I simply asked you some questions that you obviously do not wish to answer.

__________________
"But he said to me, 'My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.' Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me."

Don't let anybody steal your joy!

Kevin Morgan

Apparently you need me to make this plainer:

The insight about the tree is "her point."

I am sorry I did not make that clearer.

__________________

DrPatti

No argument there.
My point was to ask where the Scriptures so indicate.

What is clear is that you will not answer uncomfortable questions.

__________________
"But he said to me, 'My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.' Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me."

Don't let anybody steal your joy!

willy

Let me try again, you seem a little slow on this topic, A. Ellen claims at one point that the only place Adam and Eve could sin was at the tree, this is theologically accurate.

B. In a later writing she claims that the sabbath was present before the fall, this is innacurate, and incorrect, she tries to morph the Mosaic law into the garden command of do not eat.

__________________
Virtually all heresy's are stopped by a knowledge of who Christ is.
Christ as fully human does not allow for his humanity controlling his divinity.

DrPatti

Not necessarily.
God's command was not to eat of the fruit of the tree.
Technically, the eating could have happened elsewhere.
So this was yet another one of her additions to Scripture.

__________________
"But he said to me, 'My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.' Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me."

Don't let anybody steal your joy!

Kevin Morgan

OK, by a technicality, they could have figured out some ingenious way to pick the fruit without coming near the tree and eaten it somewhere else.

But does that make sense?

__________________

DrPatti

Still you assume that God commanded them not to go near it.
So your "logical" conclusions are still based upon Ellen's additions to the Scripture. You cannot even think outside the little White box.

If you are depending upon your "logic" for spiritual truth, then logic stands against your rationale here. It happens much more often than not. Unless, of course, you (if you are a gardener) eat the fruits of your labors in the garden underneath the plants they grew on.

__________________
"But he said to me, 'My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.' Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me."

Don't let anybody steal your joy!

Kevin Morgan

You dug this one yourself. I can't help you out.

__________________

DrPatti

... of anything that resembles rational argument.

???

__________________
"But he said to me, 'My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.' Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me."

Don't let anybody steal your joy!