Where Is John Osborne?, Are his talents not appreciated? Options

[awesumtenor]

Do you believe Desire of Ages to contain no errors or don't you.

It's a yes or no question... and for all of your talking, you've left the question posed to you unanswered.

Either you do... or you dont; which is it?


In His service,
Mr. J

This post has been edited by awesumtenor: Oct 2 2007, 05:06 AM

[Richard Sherwin]

Either way he answers someone will jump on his case over it.

Some questions just don't have a yes or no answer.

Do you believe Desire of Ages to be inerrant or don't you.

It's a yes or no question... and for all of your talking, you've left the question posed to you unanswered.

Either you do... or you dont; which is it?
In His service,
Mr. J

[watchbird]

Do you believe Desire of Ages to be inerrant or don't you.

It's a yes or no question... and for all of your talking, you've left the question posed to you unanswered.

Either you do... or you dont; which is it?
In His service,
Mr. J

I really don't understand why you are riding Brick so hard. Your question is NOT a simple one which can be answered by yes or no. The answer depends on what you mean by "inerrant".... for starters. In a sense there is NO human work which is completely "inerrant"... and that includes scripture which, even though inspired by God, still was produced by humans and is not free from human error.

But if one makes that flat denial of inerrancy for inspired works, then the next question is where is the error.... and while there are always some obvious errors in known facts, there is not always agreement between two people on what less that perfect grammar or words to use should be considered "error".

IMO Brick gave a very good answer to what you asked.... and I don't think she left your question unanswered... though she may have given a much more detailed answer than what you sought.... a question which IMO was not warranted by her original post anyhow... though she graciously did not complain about that.

Your continued harrassment of her on this point brings up the question of what is YOUR purpose? Why is the question of what Brick thinks about inerrancy so important to you? What do YOU hold as to inerrancy? What do YOU believe about inerrancy? Is scripture inerrent? Is Desire of Ages inerrant? If in your opinion they are NOT inerrant, then do you hold them to be valuable anyhow? Can someone value something that is not inerrant? Can someone consider that something is inspired even if it is not inerrant?

And back to Brick's original point... which was a criticism of those who criticized without having even read what they were criticizing.... would that not be a valid criticism whether or not the books mentioned were inerrant?

[Brick Step]

I really don't understand why you are riding Brick so hard. Your question is NOT a simple one which can be answered by yes or no. The answer depends on what you mean by "inerrant".... for starters. In a sense there is NO human work which is completely "inerrant"... and that includes scripture which, even though inspired by God, still was produced by humans and is not free from human error.

But if one makes that flat denial of inerrancy for inspired works, then the next question is where is the error.... and while there are always some obvious errors in known facts, there is not always agreement between two people on what less that perfect grammar or words to use should be considered "error".

IMO Brick gave a very good answer to what you asked.... and I don't think she left your question unanswered... though she may have given a much more detailed answer than what you sought.... a question which IMO was not warranted by her original post anyhow... though she graciously did not complain about that.

Your continued harrassment of her on this point brings up the question of what is YOUR purpose? Why is the question of what Brick thinks about inerrancy so important to you? What do YOU hold as to inerrancy? What do YOU believe about inerrancy? Is scripture inerrent? Is Desire of Ages inerrant? If in your opinion they are NOT inerrant, then do you hold them to be valuable anyhow? Can someone value something that is not inerrant? Can someone consider that something is inspired even if it is not inerrant?

And back to Brick's original point... which was a criticism of those who criticized without having even read what they were criticizing.... would that not be a valid criticism whether or not the books mentioned were inerrant?

Blessings WB!

Also, Richard Sherwin, I appreciate the brief point you made.

Awesumtenor, God bless, and can we just let things be for now.

[awesumtenor]

I really don't understand why you are riding Brick so hard. Your question is NOT a simple one which can be answered by yes or no. The answer depends on what you mean by "inerrant".... for starters. In a sense there is NO human work which is completely "inerrant"... and that includes scripture which, even though inspired by God, still was produced by humans and is not free from human error.

But if one makes that flat denial of inerrancy for inspired works, then the next question is where is the error.... and while there are always some obvious errors in known facts, there is not always agreement between two people on what less that perfect grammar or words to use should be considered "error".

IMO Brick gave a very good answer to what you asked.... and I don't think she left your question unanswered... though she may have given a much more detailed answer than what you sought.... a question which IMO was not warranted by her original post anyhow... though she graciously did not complain about that.

Your continued harrassment of her on this point brings up the question of what is YOUR purpose? Why is the question of what Brick thinks about inerrancy so important to you? What do YOU hold as to inerrancy? What do YOU believe about inerrancy? Is scripture inerrent? Is Desire of Ages inerrant? If in your opinion they are NOT inerrant, then do you hold them to be valuable anyhow? Can someone value something that is not inerrant? Can someone consider that something is inspired even if it is not inerrant?

And back to Brick's original point... which was a criticism of those who criticized without having even read what they were criticizing.... would that not be a valid criticism whether or not the books mentioned were inerrant?

The answer given is obfuscatory in light of the statement that drew the question. The statement Brick Step made was this:

Many persons passionately allege errors in the Bible. Many make similar allegations against the writings of Ellen White. Many allege that the White Estate is guilty of tampering with Ellen White's writings. Not always, but too often, in our experience, we look and see dust on the Bibles of these critics, and discover they maybe have not even read Desire of Ages through once. This creates thunder in our ears so we cannot hear what they say.

To which I asked this:

Are you implying that there are no errors in Desire of Ages?

If the people saying there are errors in EGW's writing have not, in large part read them, then one infers from this that there are no actual errors in it and those saying there are are making an argument from ignorance based on what they've been told.

My question was asking Brick Step if she was implying what could be inferred from her statement... and yes, it is answerable with a simple yes or no... because she either intended to imply such or she did not... and I resent your putting forth that I am "riding her so hard". I have made no condemnations of what she said; I have made no statements whatsoever one way or the other.

I asked a question to clarify whether what I read in her statement was, in fact, what she was saying... period... and neither you nor she is in a position to presume the intent behind my asking... If my intent was what you claimed, I'd not have sought clarification of any kind and if I was trying to "ride her hard" my response would have been markedly different. If, for whatever reason, she wishes to evade the question, that remains her prerogative... but this "shoot first" mentality is so uncalled for.... particularly when all I did was ask a question in an attempt to get clarification.

Y'all need to come out of that bunker every now and again; staying in there ad infinitum is skewing your perceptions...

In His service,
Mr. J

[Richard Sherwin]

And my apology for leaving out an s and giving you a sex change

Blessings WB!

Also, Richard Sherwin, I appreciate the brief point you made.

Awesumtenor, God bless, and can we just let things be for now.

[LaurenceD]

Nothing to do with DA, but recently, I was researching the Investigative Judgement and ran across this EGW book alteration:

Forty years has this work been in progress. Soon—none know how soon—it will pass to the cases of the living" (The Great Controversy, page 315, edition of 1884).

The judgment is now passing in the sanctuary above. For many years this work has been in progress. Soon – none know how soon – it will pass to the cases of the living" (The Great Controversy, 1950 edition, page 490).

Did EGW change her words from "Forty years" in 1884 to "many years" in the 1911, 1939 and 1950 editions, or did the White Estate? 1884 was truly 40 years after 1844, so why couldn't the book remain as it was written? Anyone would understand that...even 67 years later (1911 edition) when it was no longer true). Changing someone else's original work to make it contempory doesn't seem necessary and only raises skepticism about the rest...esp when no explanations are given.

In the early 1950's the RSV of the bible modified a few texts texts in Habbakuk (based on new info gleaned from the Dead Sea Scrolls), and left out, entirely, 15 verses in the NT and about a couple dozen ½ verses because it became known that these verses could not be found in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts. Doesn't this mean one is right and the others were wrong? And doesn't this raise the question of why would someone even attempt to insert new texts within older ones? New inspriation, perhaps? Where do we stop then?

The above example may be what Brick Step means when she says people passionately allege errors in EGW's writings and the Bible? Maybe the word "allege" is an error. Isn't it actually a fact that changes/additions or corrections have been made in both the Bible and EGW's writings? If so, there is a legitimate concern over what is errant and what is not. It's a valid question.

[watchbird]

The answer given is obfuscatory in light of the statement that drew the question. The statement Brick Step made was this:
To which I asked this:
If the people saying there are errors in EGW's writing have not, in large part read them, then one infers from this that there are no actual errors in it and those saying there are are making an argument from ignorance based on what they've been told.

My question was asking Brick Step if she was implying what could be inferred from her statement... and yes, it is answerable with a simple yes or no... because she either intended to imply such or she did not... and I resent your putting forth that I am "riding her so hard". I have made no condemnations of what she said; I have made no statements whatsoever one way or the other.

I asked a question to clarify whether what I read in her statement was, in fact, what she was saying... period... and neither you nor she is in a position to presume the intent behind my asking... If my intent was what you claimed, I'd not have sought clarification of any kind and if I was trying to "ride her hard" my response would have been markedly different. If, for whatever reason, she wishes to evade the question, that remains her prerogative... but this "shoot first" mentality is so uncalled for.... particularly when all I did was ask a question in an attempt to get clarification.

Y'all need to come out of that bunker every now and again; staying in there ad infinitum is skewing your perceptions...

In His service,
Mr. J

Maybe "Y'all" need to read what you write a little more carefully and ask yourself what can be "inferred" from what you write.... and from the diligence with which you pursue a possible inferrence to someone else's statement.

It seemed to me that she was making a very clear and obvious point.... that those who have not read what they criticize have no right to criticize it. Whether it deserves any specific criticism they make is hardly the point.

Nothing to do with DA, but recently, I was researching the Investigative Judgement and ran across this EGW book alteration:

Forty years has this work been in progress. Soon—none know how soon—it will pass to the cases of the living" (The Great Controversy, page 315, edition of 1884).

The judgment is now passing in the sanctuary above. For many years this work has been in progress. Soon – none know how soon – it will pass to the cases of the living" (The Great Controversy, 1950 edition, page 490).

Did EGW change her words from "Forty years" in 1884 to "many years" in the 1911, 1939 and 1950 editions, or did the White Estate? 1884 was truly 40 years after 1844, so why couldn't the book remain as it was written? Anyone would understand that...even 67 years later (1911 edition) when it was no longer true). Changing someone else's original work to make it contempory doesn't seem necessary and only raises skepticism about the rest...esp when no explanations are given.

In the early 1950's the RSV of the bible modified a few texts texts in Habbakuk (based on new info gleaned from the Dead Sea Scrolls), and left out, entirely, 15 verses in the NT and about a couple dozen ½ verses because it became known that these verses could not be found in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts. Doesn't this mean one is right and the others were wrong? And doesn't this raise the question of why would someone even attempt to insert new texts within older ones? New inspriation, perhaps? Where do we stop then?

The above example may be what Brick Step means when she says people passionately allege errors in EGW's writings and the Bible? Maybe the word "allege" is an error. Isn't it actually a fact that changes/additions or corrections have been made in both the Bible and EGW's writings? If so, there is a legitimate concern over what is errant and what is not. It's a valid question.

Maybe this is an example of what I said about what "errant" means and what it does not. Are you saying here that "change" equals "errant"? In the example you gave, is there any significant difference in meaning between using a specific number in one edition and the general term "many" in another? I would think not... unless one believes that every word is dictated from God and to change one word... even for an equivilant term.... is to somehow damage the inspired value of the work.

The facts are that Ellen White made changes herself... and authorized other changes. She also changed her views on some matter of Biblical interpretation and application. Does the fact that she changed her view make her old view errant? One can assume that. But is this the kind of errancy that is being referred to by those who use the words "errant" or "inerrant"? Yes.... if they believe a prophet cannot be in error at any time. No.... if they believe that God leads a prophet into new light just as he does others.

I think the really big point is that the word "inerrant" is not an appropriate term for either scripture or the writings of Ellen White.... unless it is very carefully qualified.... for by wide useage it has come to reflect an inflexible view of how inspiration "works"... one that either holds to verbal dictation or something very close to it. It is a view that Adventists have officially resisted through the years of our history.... but at the same time, it is a view that SOME Adventists have clung to... or adopted from those who joined us from other communions of faith.

It is the bottom line basis for many... maybe all... of the controversies that stir our church at the present time. Certainly it is at the basis of all controversies involving Ellen White.

[awesumtenor]

Maybe "Y'all" need to read what you write a little more carefully and ask yourself what can be "inferred" from what you write.... and from the diligence with which you pursue a possible inferrence to someone else's statement.

The only thing that could be rightly inferred from my initial question is that I was seeking a clarification from the speaker... rather than assuming what could be inferred from her statement was what she was implying... anything you or others inferred beyond that is your issue... and given that I have clarified my question you need not infer anything from it at all.

It seemed to me that she was making a very clear and obvious point.... that those who have not read what they criticize have no right to criticize it. Whether it deserves any specific criticism they make is hardly the point.

I have not addressed the deservedness or lack of same of any criticism in any wise... and yes, I got that point and it is not in question... however, in making said point, Brick Step raises a number of other questions... all I have asked is if she meant to do that... the essence of said questions and what they could mean has not even been approached because you and others seem insistent on giving her cover and allowing her an out to avoid discussing the ramifications of her own unsolicited statement.

When others have made statements that raised questions to you, and you asked those questions, no one alleged you to be "riding them hard"; should you not give others the same consideration?

Never mind; I'll toss the whole thing in the "vain jangling" bin and move on... and rather than be perceived as riding Brick Step too hard, I'll just deem her not worth reading from henceforth; then neither you nor she need be concerned about any questions her statements might raise to people who don't fit into her dismissal category.

In His service,
Mr. J

[LaurenceD]

WB,

Inerrant simply means "containing no errors." It's not very complicated.

Sure, translating languages always has the potential for error. So, when we mean inerrant, we mean the inerrancy of the original text, not an interpretor's personal translation of it. We must be able to safely assume the original message from God was in the same language as the writer was using to record it...so that nothing was lost in the transfer of thought. The original (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek) may need a hundred different ways, words, idioms, expressions, etc., to get the point from one language to another. As I recall, in one of the texts, the problem they found in Habbakuk was only a letter or two away from making the entire text coherent. The original KJV described a bodily fluid which doesn't make sense with the rest of the chapter. The Dead Sea Scrolls version had a different letter or two in the word which made it grape juice rather than the human bodily fluid. That made all the differnce.

So yes, every letter counts in getting the correct message across. We can't have someone getting sprinkled, now can we, if submersion is what was ordered?! And we can't have the 1st day, now can we, if 7th day is what was commanded?!

[Brick Step]

... The facts are that Ellen White made changes herself... and authorized other changes. She also changed her views on some matter of Biblical interpretation and application. Does the fact that she changed her view make her old view errant? One can assume that. But is this the kind of errancy that is being referred to by those who use the words "errant" or "inerrant"? Yes.... if they believe a prophet cannot be in error at any time. No.... if they believe that God leads a prophet into new light just as he does others.

I think the really big point is that the word "inerrant" is not an appropriate term for either scripture or the writings of Ellen White.... unless it is very carefully qualified....

That's about how I see things.

[Brick Step]

I do not see the Bible as verbally inspired. I certainly accept that in both the Bible and Ellen White’s writings there is a mingling of the human with the divine. But sometimes, even if I can’t always explain, I feel the line between the human and the divine is drawn too far to the right or to the left. I know that God will guide us on all these issues, if we let Him guide. I have at times had to change my mind on some points. (Happy days, who hasn’t!) I believe that part of being a Christian is to stand firm for the right, but to always give each other time and space to grow.

[watchbird]

WB,

Inerrant simply means "containing no errors." It's not very complicated.

Sure, translating languages always has the potential for error. So, when we mean inerrant, we mean the inerrancy of the original text, not an interpretor's personal translation of it. We must be able to safely assume the original message from God was in the same language as the writer was using to record it...so that nothing was lost in the transfer of thought. The original (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek) may need a hundred different ways, words, idioms, expressions, etc., to get the point from one language to another. As I recall, in one of the texts, the problem they found in Habbakuk was only a letter or two away from making the entire text coherent. The original KJV described a bodily fluid which doesn't make sense with the rest of the chapter. The Dead Sea Scrolls version had a different letter or two in the word which made it grape juice rather than the human bodily fluid. That made all the differnce.

So yes, every letter counts in getting the correct message across. We can't have someone getting sprinkled, now can we, if submersion is what was ordered?! And we can't have the 1st day, now can we, if 7th day is what was commanded?!

Interesting comments. Spoken like a true Fundamentalist inerrantist.

I'd suggest that you spend some time with the Graeme Bradford materials on the At Issue site... and also with the audio or video files of the presentations by Bradford and Alden Thompson at the Glendale, Arizona, Inspiration/Revelation Conference held this last spring.

While these discuss a lot of things besides merely the issues of inerrancy vs inspiration that meets the people through the prophet where they are.... I think you will find some helpful thoughts on this in both Bradford's book and in the Conference presentations... especially does Thompson deal with issues of scriptural inspiration.

[LaurenceD]

...and Alden Thompson...

...especially does Thompson deal with issues of scriptural inspiration.

Spoken with the man many times. I know his views well. He doesn't disagree that the scriptures should be clear on what's expected from us. My question to him was....what's wrong with clarity? That led to us to a long study of the meaning of what's to be found in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts.

[mystery- man]

The answer given is obfuscatory in light of the statement that drew the question. The statement Brick Step made was this:
To which I asked this:
If the people saying there are errors in EGW's writing have not, in large part read them, then one infers from this that there are no actual errors in it and those saying there are are making an argument from ignorance based on what they've been told.

My question was asking Brick Step if she was implying what could be inferred from her statement... and yes, it is answerable with a simple yes or no... because she either intended to imply such or she did not... and I resent your putting forth that I am "riding her so hard". I have made no condemnations of what she said; I have made no statements whatsoever one way or the other.

I asked a question to clarify whether what I read in her statement was, in fact, what she was saying... period... and neither you nor she is in a position to presume the intent behind my asking... If my intent was what you claimed, I'd not have sought clarification of any kind and if I was trying to "ride her hard" my response would have been markedly different. If, for whatever reason, she wishes to evade the question, that remains her prerogative... but this "shoot first" mentality is so uncalled for.... particularly when all I did was ask a question in an attempt to get clarification.

Y'all need to come out of that bunker every now and again; staying in there ad infinitum is skewing your perceptions...

In His service,
Mr. J

Awe, for what it is worth to you I consider your question a valid one. On the otherhand I can see why individuals would not want to answer that question with a yes or no answer. Yes, would mean that they are obligated to follow all that she says for peril of their own life. No, would mean that she was not lead by God (to some) because God is never wrong and he does not make mistakes.

There are some questions that are just to hard to answer and lead to a slippery slop of doubt and speculation. Actually, human do better when they dont have to think much about things.

I will answer the question myself. No, I do not think that Her writing are perfect but I do think that God gave her (inspiration) and that everything she says must be held to the standard of the Bible. I have read completely the Desire of Ages and Great Controversy and find them completely compatable with the bible.