Seventh Day Adventists

[illuminator]

I must take SDA2RC thoroughly to task on his last post.

SDA2RC said, “…you come along, likely with little or no translation or ancient language experience, and ask us to ignore the scholars in order to support your re-translation of scripture. This is something that I, and most likely, most of my Catholic peers are not likely to do… Furthermore, you have not even provided and grammatical or historical support for your claim that nearly all scriptural translators are ignorant of a clear fact that the SDAChurch is able to see.”

This argument is fallacious as I will prove in the following:

1. The greek says: Amen soi lego semeron met emou ese en to paradeso. Literally translated this is: “Truly to you I say today you will be with me in paradise” Notice that if the Greek writer wanted to make it absolutely clear that was the day that the thief was going to paradise he could have said, “Truly to you I say you will be with me in paradise today” - He did not (for good reason). The adverb “semeron”, “today” stands between two clauses which read literally “Truly to you I say” and “you will be with me in paradise” Again I repeat, based on the construction of this sentence, it is impossible to tell whether the adverb modifies the “I say” or the “you will be with me in paradise.”

SDA2RC said, “First, this phrase, “Verily I Say” is used 74 times (Greek: amen soi lego) and in all 74 times you will find a break after the phrase, because that was how it was used. To try to claim that we should break from the usual usage of the phrase in one case out of 74 in an attempt to support SDA theology is not logical, nor practical scriptural reading.”

The basis of the meaning of the passage should not be on where translators a millennia or more later decide to put the comma. It should be based on whether the interpretation of either meaning is internally consistent and consistent with the rest of the Bible. You seem to place more importance of where the comma is placed on the practice of translators over what the meaning of the text is. This is an unsound method of translation. It is one thing to compare uses of words throughout the Bible, it is quite another to compare punctuation – something that was never even written into the original document.

To simply assume that an SDA understanding of this text flies in the face of 100s of years of scholarly understanding is a gross misunderstanding of history and what the Bible has to say on the topic. SDA2RC makes to fatal flaws in his reasoning. I will point these out in the next post:

 

[illuminator]

**Fatal flaw #1) This is an SDA understanding of scripture **

-like most SDA understanding of scripture it is not unique to SDA at all!

-Martin Luther (1493-1596) – “For since we call it a sleep, we know that we shall not remain in it but be again awakened and live, and that the time during which we sleep, shall seem no longer than if we had just fallen asleep….Scripture everywhere affords such consolation.”
A Compend of Luther Theology page 242

“Luther espoused the doctrine of the sleep of the soul, upon a scripture foundation, and then he made use of it as a confutation of purgatory, and saint worship, and continued in that belief to the last moment of his life.”
Short Historical view of the controversy concerning an intermediate state by Archdeacon Francis Blackburne 1765

-William Tyndale (1484-1536)
-John Frith (1500-1533 “…That some are already in hell and some in heaven, which thing ye shall never be able to prove by the scriptures…”
-Archbishop John Tillotson of Canterbury (1630-1694) “I do not find that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul is anywhere expressely delivered in scripture, but taken for granted” Works 1717 edition Vol 1 page 749
-Bishop Edmond Law (1703-1787) – Master of St Peter’s College, bishop of Carisle held death to be a sleep, a negation of all life, thought, or action, and state of rest, oblivion.

The list goes on and on and on (All prior to the very first Seventh-day Adventist)
All holding the exact same view on the topic.

Look at the next Post for Fatal Flaw #2)

 

[illuminator]

**Fatal flaw #2) The use of the word “Paradise.” ** SDA2RC would have us believe that the teaching of a modern Catholic apologist by the name Joachim Jeremias (who says that in the 1st century, that paradise was a “hidden’ place of blessedness for the righteous between the time of their death and the future resurrection” – a teaching that is completely non Biblical) was what was on Jesus’ mind when he told the thief he would be going to Paradise. Let’s actually see where else the word “paradise” is used to see if this fits the above definition (The Bible will interpret itself. Let’s look at Rev 2:7):

“He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the **paradise ** of God.”

This is the *same * greek word for paradise as used in the thief text. In paradise, we will be eating from the Tree of Life forever. John the revelator knew exactly what Jesus was talking about when he said paradise. It’s no “hidden place”. There is The Tree of Life. We are eating it! We are alive, we have knowledge. All these things we don’t have when we are dead! (read Eccl 9:5, 6, 10 and Ps 115:17)

Let’s look at 2 Cor 12: 2-4
It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to *visions * and *revelations * of the Lord. I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth) such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth) How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

Bascially, Paul, is talking about when Barnabas brought him from Tarsus to Antioch. He says that one day he was taken to heaven either being taken up to heaven in vision or physically (he can’t tell which one – or remember). He goes on to say that the things he saw were impossible to put into words. The point here is that the word used for heaven was “paradise” and it is the same greek word used in the thief text.

So again, I say that **CATEGORICALLY ** - there is no way that Christ could truthfully say that the thief was going to paradise that day. Jesus was in the Tomb the next day. Were they both in this “hidden place” together? That can’t be because we know that Jesus hadn’t ascended to the Father. Because, as we have just seen, the same word used in the greek is the word used by John and Paul to refer to heaven where unspeakable glorious things happen and the Tree of Life is, the word used in the thief text can only refer to Heaven itself. This is no “hidden place.” There is just no Biblical evidence for this. Therefore, the comma MUST go AFTER the word today.

Another point, Lets look at the text again: Luke 23:42:
"And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee today, shalt thou be with me in paradise.

Notice that the thief sets up the time when Jesus is supposed to “remember him” - IT’S WHEN HE COMES INTO HIS KINGDOM (not his “hidden place”) - that’s when he Jesus says that he will be with him in paradise (in his Kingdom). IF the thief is asking about Jesus’ kingdom, it makes no sense for Jesus to answer back about anything other than his Kindgom (paradise).

I think the evidence speaks for itself. SDAs aren’t (by far) the only ones who believe this. I have shown that this was common belief even before Luther. It is Biblical and “lines” up with the other “guideposts” of scripture in the Old and New Testament. I have shown that the use of the word “paradise” in the New Testament is synonymous in meaning with heaven. I have shown that the time frame that the thief was asking Jesus about was when he came into his Kingdom (which was not on Friday and therefore could not be “today”) The only thing that Jesus was doing “today” was telling him of his salvation - this was because of the dire circumstances that the theif was under (dying) - he needed to know at that moment and he needed comfort and reassurance. God knew this, What a God we serve!

We beleive that the thief on the cross is now dead. He is resting in an a state described in Eccl 9:5, 6, 10 and Ps 146:3, 4 and Job 14:21 and Ps 115:17 and Ps 6:5 and Eccl 3:19-21. And he is awaiting for the ressurection of the Second Comming to be with Jesus in Paradise just as he promised on that fateful day on Calvary.

To quote Peter: Acts 2:29,34
“Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day…For David is **not ** ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand.”

Peace

 

[SDAgirl]

Illuminator, I’m off to bed but I just thought I would drop a few lines here first. I tried all day to discuss similarities we have and it is just not well recieved here. I hope nobody thinking about becoming Catholic reads the thread I was a part of because it was accusatory and brash. I think that alot of what is said is falling on deaf ears because of interpretational differences. Sadly, these cant be spoken of forgivingly. Many were lovely so I’m glad I did it, but others dont think we are even Christian and it is hard to argue a point with these. I hope for a day where we can talk openly about fundamental beliefs and not copy vast amounts of literature someone else wrote to prove our point, or theirs. God Bless.

 

[ruth1_16]

Matt 27:52,53,54

It certainly is of consequence. The saints were raised from the dead. Many ( eye witnesses) saw them and believed in Jesus The Son of God!

ruth1:16

 

[Mike_D30]

SDAgirl:

Illuminator, I’m off to bed but I just thought I would drop a few lines here first. I tried all day to discuss similarities we have and it is just not well recieved here. I hope nobody thinking about becoming Catholic reads the thread I was a part of because it was accusatory and brash. I think that alot of what is said is falling on deaf ears because of interpretational differences. Sadly, these cant be spoken of forgivingly. Many were lovely so I’m glad I did it, but others dont think we are even Christian and it is hard to argue a point with these. I hope for a day where we can talk openly about fundamental beliefs and not copy vast amounts of literature someone else wrote to prove our point, or theirs. God Bless.

No one said you weren’t Christian, please stop playing the martyr. You sound very sweet and very nice, you have to understand the bigotry of your Church towards our Church is always going to cause a riff. Your teachings on our Church are offensive to us, and down right anti-Catholic.

People only pointed out that SDA’s didn’t accept the Trinity when the Church was first formed, so then they wouldn’t be considered Christian. However now they believe in the Trinity so the nature of God is agreed upon with Christian beliefs, so you are Christian. No one said SDA’s aren’t Christian. Most people were very charitable to you, even pleasant. Perhaps I should’ve been more so, but I really bit my tongue as SDA teachings cause me much pain.

If you want to be a true martyr go on over to CARM and spend five minutes there (especially on the R.C. board). Then you’ll know about well recieved and libelous assaults.

Either way, you are very nice and always welcome, however it’s unrealistic to come on as an SDA and not expect us to counter you, it is a Catholic site, and your Church does consider ours the beast of Revelation, and proliferates many falsehoods about the R.C. Church, that isn’t going to just be ignored.

God Bless!

 

[jim1130]

SDAgirl:

Illuminator, I’m off to bed but I just thought I would drop a few lines here first. I tried all day to discuss similarities we have and it is just not well recieved here. I hope nobody thinking about becoming Catholic reads the thread I was a part of because it was accusatory and brash. I think that alot of what is said is falling on deaf ears because of interpretational differences. Sadly, these cant be spoken of forgivingly. Many were lovely so I’m glad I did it, but others dont think we are even Christian and it is hard to argue a point with these. I hope for a day where we can talk openly about fundamental beliefs and not copy vast amounts of literature someone else wrote to prove our point, or theirs. God Bless.

Peace be with you.

I believe people have been very charitable toward you and Illuminator.

Having said that, here is a Web site with some questions that you can answer about the Doctrine of the Trinity: angelfire.com/ms/seanie/adventism/sdatrinity.html

Here is also an invitation to SDA: angelfire.com/ms/seanie/adventism/sdainvitation.html

Enjoy.

Peace.

 

[SDA2RC]

illuminator:

IThis argument is fallacious as I will prove in the following:

1. The greek says: Amen soi lego semeron met emou ese en to paradeso. Literally translated this is: “Truly to you I say today you will be with me in paradise” Notice that if the Greek writer wanted to make it absolutely clear that was the day that the thief was going to paradise he could have said, “Truly to you I say you will be with me in paradise today” - He did not (for good reason). The adverb “semeron”, “today” stands between two clauses which read literally “Truly to you I say” and “you will be with me in paradise” Again I repeat, based on the construction of this sentence, it is impossible to tell whether the adverb modifies the “I say” or the “you will be with me in paradise.” :

Illuminator, you have done nothing other than give us your opinion. Your opinion stands directly opposed to the hundreds of scholars who translate scripture for a living. Your argument is from silence, ie. “if he would have wanted to make it clear then he would have said…” In doing this you are both second guessing the inspiration of the Holy Spirit AND doing something called arguing from silence, which is not an argument. Its a guess at what might have been. The fact is that it would make no sense in the construct of the greek for him to have added Today to the first phrase. I can just as easily argue from silence and guess that if Luke had meant what you are trying to force on him, he could have send, “Truly, today I tell you…”

illuminator:

The basis of the meaning of the passage should not be on where translators a millennia or more later decide to put the comma. It should be based on whether the interpretation of either meaning is internally consistent and consistent with the rest of the Bible.:

You are partiall right, the basis of the meaning of a passage should not be decided on something very recent. Which is why I would ask you to look seriously at your belief. The church has never held a belief in soul sleep or that this text should be interpreted in the way you are trying to change it. Your belief is a rather new belief that does not have very much historical, scriptural or patristic support. This is not just the interpretation of English Bibles, other languages translate this the same way.

illuminator:

You seem to place more importance of where the comma is placed on the practice of translators over what the meaning of the text is. This is an unsound method of translation. It is one thing to compare uses of words throughout the Bible, it is quite another to compare punctuation – something that was never even written into the original document.:

Illuminator, I simply do not ignore scholarship and hermenutics in reading scripture, as you are asking us to do. I explained last night that the translation is supported by many other things besides the lack of a comma, such as the useage of the term in the other 73 passages where it used, as well as the beliefs of the first century jews. You seem to place more importance on twisting scripture to fit the beliefs of your denomination, than on an objective look at scholarship and the understanding of the first JEws and Christians.

illuminator:

To simply assume that an SDA understanding of this text flies in the face of 100s of years of scholarly understanding is a gross misunderstanding of history and what the Bible has to say on the topic. SDA2RC makes to fatal flaws in his reasoning. I will point these out in the next post:

I do not assume that it flies in the face of mainstream understanding, it is a fact, just look at any of the 20 or so commonly used Bibles. I look forward to reading your “expose” of my flaws… LOL BTW… why do you think it was translated the way it was for the last couple of millenium? Do you think it is a conspiracy?

Brandon

 

[SDA2RC]

**Fatal flaw #1) This is an SDA understanding of scripture **
-like most SDA understanding of scripture it is not unique to SDA at all!
…
The list goes on and on and on (All prior to the very first Seventh-day Adventist)
All holding the exact same view on the topic.

Look at the next Post for Fatal Flaw #2)

ROTFL… William Tyndale, Martin Luther? Let me ask you?
If you trust his doctrinal idea’s… why are you not Lutheran? You quoted individuals over the past 400 years… wow… I can quote fathers up to two thousand years ago! Further, you did not address the translation of the passage we were discussing.

To show that a few individuals made quotes that could have been or may not have been in support of soul sleep, shows nothing, especially, since not even the Lutherans follow what you claim he taught. Luther also taught that Mary was in Heaven with Christ, and that several books of the New Testamanet should be removed from the cannon? Do you quote him on these too? Or are you more selective?

I can quote from people older than this that have believed heretical teachings… I am not sure what your point is? This certainly does not show that the Church EVER taught or believed soul sleep as an accepted doctrine in the first centuries or any time since then.
Brandon

 

[SDA2RC]

Fatal flaw #2) The use of the word “

Paradise**.” **SDA2RC would have us believe that the teaching of a modern Catholic apologist by the name Joachim Jeremias (who says that in the 1st century, that paradise was a “hidden’ place of blessedness for the righteous between the time of their death and the future resurrection” – a teaching that is completely non Biblical) was what was on Jesus’ mind when he told the thief he would be going to Paradise. Let’s actually see where else the word “paradise” is used to see if this fits the above definition (The Bible will interpret itself. Let’s look at Rev 2:7):

Ahh proof texting… LOL Proof texting is taking verses that are unrelated and not sharing a similar context and claiming they interpret one another. Doing this, I can show that God is a chicken, because both God and Chickens are said to have wings!! This should be fun!

Not only is the Jewish concept of Paradise biblical, (just read the story about Abrahams Bosom, which is a clear explanation of paradise and sheol.) But it is also historical, as you will find if you open most Bible Dictionaries, commentaries, and encyclopedia’s and look up paradise and Sheol. For example, I will quote this from the Jewish Encyclopedia article on paradise:

Jewish authorities are almost unanimous in maintaining that there is a terrestrial as well as a celestial Gan 'Eden; that the Garden of Eden in Genesis is a model in miniature of the higher Gan 'Eden called paradise (see Eden, Garden of). Paradise is occasionally referred to as “'Olam ha-Ba” (= “the world to come”); but generally this term is used for the post-millennial time, after the Messianic and resurrection periods. Sometimes the terms “Gan 'Eden” and “'Olam ha-Ba” are erroneously interchanged. Gan 'Eden is recognized by Naḥmanides as “'Olam ha-Neshamot” (= “the world of the souls”), which the departed souls of the righteous enter immediately after death (see Sem. i. 5b; Tem. 16a).

So… apparently, not just Joachim thinks this beleif exists in Judaism, but so does the Jewish encyclopedia… as well as several Christian sources. Also, notice that you have not produced any Jewish source that claims that they did not believe in Sheol or Paradise and that this is not what Christ could have been referring to But on with your “taking me to task”

"He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the **paradise **

of God."

Great verse! This verse shows exactly what I said… i.e. that paradise is used differently at different times, and that many believe that Paradise was taken to heaven with Christ. This fits perfectly in that belief, since it was written probably close to 65 years after the death of Christ, to a completely different audience, with different beliefs. Now, I know they both use the word Paradise, but they are hardly similar context’s and audiences. This text supports my assertion about its use AND has no contextual ties related to Luke, it just happens to have the same word.

Cont -

 

[SDA2RC]

illuminator:

Let’s look at 2 Cor 12: 2-4

The point here is that the word used for heaven was “paradise” and it is the same greek word used in the thief text.

Yep… and is still seperated contexually and from the audience of Luke. And it is still supportive of my assertion about Paradise as a Jewish belief and the Christian belief that Paradise was moved to heaven when christ died.

BTW… let me quote just the simple dictionary, now the dictionary is not biased or slanted, it just reports the definitions and it says, under the entry for paradise: 1 a **: EDEN **2 b : an intermediate place or state where the righteous departed await resurrection and judgment c : HEAVEN. See… first Eden, second definition is the place that I referred to in Jewish Belief, and third, heaven!

"So again, I say that **CATEGORICALLY **

• there is no way that Christ could truthfully say that the thief was going to paradise that day. Jesus was in the Tomb the next day. Were they both in this “hidden place” together?

Illuminator, you still have not disproved the belief of the Jews in Paradise, further you have not proven that the comma should be where you state it should be. You have provided basically no evidence other than your own beliefs. Christ was with the thief in Paradise, and while his body was in the tomb, Christ did not cease to exist like you are trying to convince us.

I think this is an important point that needs to be examined in Adventism and your beliefs. Adventist’s believe that Christ, who is God, CEASED TO EXIST when he was dead. That his knowledge, activity, planning, and work, ceased to exist. Further, this would also mean that the Trinity CEASED TO EXIST while Christ was in the grave since 1/3 of the trinity ceased to exist. THIS IS AGAINST SCRIPTURE! God (Christ) did not die, for he is immortal, his body died, but his Spirit continued then and continues now! The trinity did not cease to exist!

"This is no “hidden place.” There is just no Biblical evidence for this. Therefore, the comma MUST go AFTER the word today.

There are mounds of Biblical and SCHOLARLY evidence for the Jewish belief in Paradise, and the comma does not have to go after the word today. It must only go after it if your trying to make it fit a certain theology like you and the Jehovah’s Witnesses do! For the rest of us, scholarship, history, church teaching, and scripture tells us otherwise!

"Notice that the thief sets up the time when Jesus is supposed to “remember him” - IT’S WHEN HE COMES INTO HIS KINGDOM (not his “hidden place”) - that’s when he Jesus says that he will be with him in paradise (in his Kingdom). IF the thief is asking about Jesus’ kingdom, it makes no sense for Jesus to answer back about anything other than his Kindgom (paradise). .

ROTFL, now you are claiming that paradise is synonymous with kingdom? ROTFL…

Continued one more… sorry…

 

[SDA2RC]

"I think the evidence speaks for itself. SDAs aren’t (by far) the only ones who believe this.

ROTFL… this is true, you are in the esteemed company and scholarship of the Jehovah’s Witness on this one. They took this to it’s logical end and re-translated the Bible in order to support their doctrines, maybe you could use their Bible!

Illuminator, I really am enjoying this and hope we can continue, I am on vacation right now so don’t have most of my tools and reference materials with me, but will limp along the best I can… I appreciate your willingness to engage in discussion of your beliefs and ours! I understand your position because I was SDA, and taught SabbathSchool, and Bible Studies, and all the rest. I used the same arguments that you are using. In fact I can think of a few that you haven’t used yet. But I found that they only held water in the SDA community. I realized that I could not go back to the early church founders, and early Christians and find the practices and beliefs that Adventist’s teach, even before Constantine. I found that much of what I had been told of Catholicism was not true! I hope you will continue to study and pray!

illuminator:

To quote Peter: Acts

2:29,34

“Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day…For David is **not **ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand.”

(Mark 12:26NASB) "But regarding the fact that the dead rise again, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the burning bush, how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I AM THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, AND THE GOD OF ISAAC, AND THE GOD OF JACOB’?

(Mark 12:27NASB) “He is not the God of the dead, but of the living;** you are greatly mistaken**.”

 

[illuminator]

SDA2RC:

I’m really am done with this verse regarding the theif. I must move on to other more important verses.

Suffice to say the following before I do:

#1 My point in bringing up Luther was not say that I beleive everything he says. It was to show you that the doctinr of soul sleeping existed before SDAs did. That’s all I had to show. I did. I never said that I trusted his doctinal ideas (or that I should become one) - I trust the Bible and the BIble only.

#2 You keep saying that this is some new idea and thaty you quote people thousands of years ago. So do I. For instance:

Job 7:21
007:021 And why dost thou not pardon my transgression, and take away my iniquity? for now shall I sleep in the dust; and thou shalt seek me in the morning, but I shall not be.

Job 14:10-12
014:010 But man dieth, and wasteth away: yea, man giveth up the ghost, and where is he?
014:011 As the waters fail from the sea, and the flood decayeth and drieth up:
014:012 So man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep.

Job is a VERY old book - some say written by Moses himself!

Deut 31:16
031:016 And the LORD said unto Moses, Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers; and this people will rise up, and go a whoring after the gods of the strangers of the land, whither they go to be among them, and will forsake me, and break my covenant which I have made with them.

1Kings 2:10
002:010 So David slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David.

1King 11:43
011:043 And Solomon slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David his father: and Rehoboam his son reigned in his stead.

Acts 13:36
013:036 For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption:

2 Peter 3:4
003:004 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

Psalms 13:3
013:003 Consider and hear me, O LORD my God: lighten mine eyes, lest I sleep the sleep of death;

My quotes are much older than yours.

But the best one is from Peter (the one you trhink was the first Pope):

To quote Peter: Acts 2:29,34
“Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day…For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand.”

I’m done with this one. On to the other passages that I’ve promised for so long to deal with:

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

amills:

SDAgirl and Illuminator,

I have some questions for you. This has bothered me about the SDA church and perhaps you can clarify for me.

I have read the book The Great Controversy. In the first couple of chapters Ellen G White writes some things about the Catholic Church that are blantant lies. (Sorry to sound harsh here but I don’t know how else to describe them.) I will give you just two examples: 1. she accuses the Church of changing the ten commandments in order to promote idoltry. If you look in any Catholic Bible you will see this is not true. 2. She defines infallibility of the Pope as the pope having declared he never can make a mistake. Again her presentation is a total misinterpretation of the doctrine of infallibility with regards to faith and morals. The examples she then gives are then not examples of infallible situations. There are many other instances of clear misrepresentations of the Catholic Church. These are just some examples.

So my Questions to you are: How can someone be considered a prophet when her books contain many things that can quite easily be shown to be wrong? (I have her whole collection of books) There are not just a few things but a lot of things wrong in the books. I just cannot understand how she could be considered a prophet.

Secondly, why does the SDA church continue to allow these books to be published? The only reason that I could think of that they might continue is that they actually believe these falsehoods.

Thank you for your consideration.
Annette

Did they answer you Annette?

And, could you list those mistakes in a new thread please as time allows?

Thanks
Daniel

 

[illuminator]

SDA2RC You keep talking about this “paradise” in jewish thought. I’ve just given you a bunch of texts from the old testament that support the idea of sleep (no paradise) in death.

There is my historical, critical, and theological evidence. The writers of the old testament beleived in death as a sleep (no mention of paradise). Doesn’t say that David went to Paradise with his Fathers. It says that he slept!

You arguments are not sounds.

You say that since the word paradise was told to two different populations that it must mean different things doesn’t make sense. If I pull up to a gas station and the worker is chinese and I say I want “gas” he will give me gas. If I pull up to a gas stations and the worker is white and I say I want gas, just because it is being said to a different person doesn’t mean the word gas mean something different.

You say that the jehovah’s wittness believe this only and SDAs. This is certainly not the case - as I have shown you. Most if not all the reformers also believed this. This is how they refuted the idea of prugatory.

You keep talking about extra biblical texts and what they say that the jews believed. Assuming that they are correct, so what. It does not mean that they were correct in believing this. I believe in the Bible and the Bible alone. I could say that since you beleive in what some literature says that the jews beleived that you should also believe that Jesus was not the son of God (this is what they beleve today). Again, none of your arguments make any sense at all.

I still haven’t heard your comments on what Peter said:

To quote Peter: Acts 2:29,34
“Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day…For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand.”

The word “is” is refering to the present tense. So he was dead and bured when Peter spoke and he had not ascended into the heavens. Clear as day. This was a guy that God said was “after my own heart” - and where is he? Still dead and buried. Period. - no paradise no eden no intermediate place

 

[jim1130]

illuminator:

I still haven’t heard your comments on what Peter said:

To quote Peter: Acts 2:29,34
“Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day…For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand.”

The word “is” is refering to the present tense. So he was dead and bured when Peter spoke and he had not ascended into the heavens. Clear as day. This was a guy that God said was “after my own heart” - and where is he? Still dead and buried. Period. - no paradise no eden no intermediate place

theotokos.co.za/adventism/soulslp.html

Acts 3:34 talks of David not having risen into heaven. The KJV says, “David is not ascended.” More reliable translations say “David did not ascend.” The latter are correct. The tense is the aorist tense, means “that something has happened in a past time relative to the speaker, with no particular focus on its beginning, end, or progress. The Simple Past (he died) tense is usually the best English equivalent.” Taken from Chapman, Benjamin and Shogren, Gary Steven, Greek New Testament Insert (Quakertown, PA: Stylus Publishing) 1994. So what this verse is saying is that, at the time of his death (to which Luke’s quote refers), David did not ascend to heaven. It is saying nothing of David’s continuous state in any way. The KJV has used an incorrect rendering of this text, causing the confusion.

 

[jim1130]

illuminator:

You say that the jehovah’s wittness believe this only and SDAs. This is certainly not the case - as I have shown you. Most if not all the reformers also believed this. This is how they refuted the idea of prugatory.

The Reformers were wrong. To promote and endorse their theology, they removed books from the Bible.

angelfire.com/ms/seanie/deuteros/francisdesales.html - by Saint Francis de Sales (1567-1622), Bishop and Doctor of the Church “The Protestant Violation of Holy Scripture”

CHAPTER VII - HOW GREATLY THE REFORMERS HAVE VIOLATED THE INTEGRITY OF THE SCRIPTURES - Now, how can an honest soul refrain from giving the rein to the ardour of a holy zeal, and from entering into a Christian anger, without sin, considering with what presumption those who do nothing but cry, Scripture, Scripture, have despised, degraded, and profaned this divine Testament of the eternal Father, as they have falsified this sacred contract of so glorious an alliance! 0 ministers of Calvinism, how do you dare to cut away so many noble parts of the sacred body of the Bibles? You take away Baruch, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, the Machabees: why do you thus dismember the Holy Scripture? Who has told you that they are not sacred? There was some doubt about them in the ancient Church; but was there not doubt in the ancient Church about Esther, the Epistle to the Hebrews, those of S. James and S. Jude, the Second of S. Peter, the two last of S. John, and especially of the Apocalypse? Why do you not also erase these as you have done those? **Acknowledge honestly that what you have done in this has only been in order to contradict the Church. You were angry at seeing in the Machabees the intercession of Saints and prayers for the departed: Ecclesasticus stung you in that it bore witness to free-will and the honour of relics. Rather than do violence to your notions, adjusting them to the Scriptures you have violated the Scriptures to accommodate them to your notions: you have cut off the holy Word to avoid cutting off your fancies: how will you ever cleanse yourselves from this sacrilege ? Have you degraded the Machabees, Ecclesiasticus, Tobias, and the rest, because some of the Ancients have doubted of their authority ? Why then do you receive the other books, about which there has been as much doubt as about these ? What can you oppose to them except that their doctrine is hard for you to accept ? Open your heart to faith, and you will easily receive that which your unbelief shuts out from you. Because you do not will to believe what they teach, you condemn them : rather condemn your presumption, and receive the Scripture. ** I would chiefly lay stress on the authority of those books which exercise you the most. Clement of Alexandria (Strom. v. 5, &c.), Cyprian (Ep. lxv.), Ambrose (de fide iv.), Augustine (Ep. ad Oros. contra Prise.), and the rest of the Fathers consider Ecclesiasticus canonical. S. Cyprian (Serm. de op et Deem.), S. Ambrose (lib. de Tobid, i.), S. Basil (de avar.), honour Tobias as Holy Scripture. S. Cyprian again (de exhort. mar.), S. Gregory Nazianzen (orat. de Mach.), S. Ambrose (de Tacob et vit beat. x. xi.), believed the same of the Machabees. S. Augustine protests that: "it is the Catholic Church which holds the Books of Machabees as canonical, not the Jews. "What will you say to this ? that the Jews had them not in their catalogues ? S. Augustine acknowledges it; but are you Jews, or Christians? If you would be called Christians, be satisfied that the Christian Church receives them.

 

[jim1130]

illuminator:

You say that the jehovah’s wittness believe this only and SDAs. This is certainly not the case - as I have shown you. Most if not all the reformers also believed this. This is how they refuted the idea of prugatory.

The Truth of the Doctrine of Purgatory - angelfire.com/ms/seanie/adventism/purgatory.html

 

[amills]

Daniel - no my questions have not been answered but I understand for there are quite a few other questions being answered. Illuminator promised to answer and I can be patient.

The reason I feel that my questions are important is because this is the very basis of the SDA faith. EGW must be justified as a prophet to make any arguements made to be credible. In the introduction to GC she proclaims that the information in the book has been revealed to her by God. To me this indicates she is proclaiming herself a prophet. But the book contains some outright lies. (Again sorry to sound harsh but I don’t have a better word. )

For the SDA to continue to propagate those lies makes it very hard for me to find credibility in anything else they may say.

I will post the examples when time permits. I do not have the book with me now.

Annette

 

[illuminator]

jim1130:

Acts 3:34 talks of David not having risen into heaven. The KJV says, “David is not ascended.” More reliable translations say “David did not ascend.” The latter are correct. The tense is the aorist tense, means “that something has happened in a past time relative to the speaker, with no particular focus on its beginning, end, or progress. The Simple Past (he died) tense is usually the best English equivalent.” Taken from Chapman, Benjamin and Shogren, Gary Steven, Greek New Testament Insert (Quakertown, PA: Stylus Publishing) 1994. So what this verse is saying is that, at the time of his death (to which Luke’s quote refers), David did not ascend to heaven. It is saying nothing of David’s continuous state in any way. The KJV has used an incorrect rendering of this text, causing the confusion.

Nice try. Either way of saying it brings the point accross that he is not in heaven because he is “dead and buried” * as the text says.

Now on to other things becuase there are items that are out there that people need answers to and SDA2RC can’t monopolize the entire discussion just because he doesn’t understand why SDAs and other Protestants believe the way they do based on Bible evidence.

For instance, amills has asked some good questions about Ellen White which I will be answering soon. And other people have asked about the “boosom of Abraham” story. I appriciate you patience realizing that I am a full-time physician with wife and child and this takes time to reseach. I basically understand what the arguments are but I have to reference everything for you because I know that you will test everything that I say (rightly so).

I find though that alot of you are putting words in my mouth and assuming things about what I beleive. Please don’t do that. It wastes time in having to repair things on the posts. For instance. SDA2RC said that the SDA view of the state of the dead was unique to SDA’s only. I countered with information that showed that most if not all of the Protestants did also beleive that the soul was NOT immortal. Then SDA2RC thought I should become a Lutheran since I thought Luther was a great guy (of course I wasn’t saying this; all I was saying was that Luther was an example of someone who believed this before SDAs). Then JIM 1130 starts giving me evidence on why Luther was wrong (which is fine but please it’s not really what the argument is about).

Remeber - this post is not to prove to you all the beliefs of the SDA church. It is to show you (as was asked previously) WHY SDA beleive the way they do. You must undersand that we get our Doctrine from the Bible and the Bible only. So we will interpret things in the Bible - based on the Bible. Not on what a dictionary thought that a certain group of Jews thought about Paradise)… If you want to bring in un-inspired extra biblical information to interpret the Bible - fine. YOu can do that to formulate your beliefs. That will never happen in the SDA church. Let me repeat that again. The church will never bring in extra-biblical information to creat Doctine for the church. The Bible is the test for truth completely. Is 8:20.

We will get to Ellen White very shortly. If you want the officall vie on what the chruch thinks, looks at their web site and look under fundamental beliefs.

The writings of Ellen G. White are condisered inspired ONLY becuase of the criteria put forth in the Bible regarding her writings.

More later*