10 Commandments Twice Removed - Amazon $0.01, what does it say in a nutshell? Options

[Brick Step]

In regard to the question of the nature of the rocks where the true Mount Sinai is located, and for those who believe in Ellen White as a prophet of God, I quote the following, just out of interest.

“When the children of Israel left Rephidim they pursued their journey, winding up a narrow opening through the bold granite rocks of the desert mountains. They gradually ascended higher and higher, until there opened before them a wide extended plain, enclosed by granite ridges and mountain peaks towering toward the heavens. Horeb's range stood before them in somber majesty, its rocky crags towering aloft directed the eyes of the travelers heavenward. Awful, silent grandeur reigned over all. What a contrast was this scene to the busy activity of Egypt! Here there was nothing to distract the mind, nothing to speak to the senses but the stern granite pinnacles pointing toward heaven. God had commanded Moses to bring his people to this place of natural solitude and sublimity, that they might hear his voice, and receive the statute book of heaven.

“Fifty days previous to this the pillar of fire had lighted the path through the Red Sea that God had miraculously opened before the marching multitudes of his people. They had since then made their way slowly onward through the desert; and God, by his miraculous power, had wrought for them in their necessity. When they were parched with thirst they had murmured against God, forgetful of what he had done for them; but God did not forget them, he gave them water from the flinty rock, and rained down bread from heaven to satisfy their hunger; and, through his providence, taught them lessons of faith in his power.” EGW, Signs of the Times, 7 March, 1878.

“The flagon of water was poured into one, and a flagon of wine into the other [this is speaking of the Feast of Tabernacles]; and the contents of both flowed into a pipe which communicated with the Kedron, and was conducted to the Dead Sea. This display of the consecrated water represented the fountain that at the command of God had gushed from the granite rock to quench the thirst of the children of Israel. Then the jubilant strains rang forth, "The Lord Jehovah is my strength and song;" "therefore with joy shall we draw water out of the wells of salvation." EGW, Signs of the Times, 23 September, 1897.

[Brick Step]

...
The change from the parochial "Sister Ellen White"... to the familial Ellen... does not at all denote disrespect for the person. In fact it very often reflects a new comfort and affection for her... in contrast to the sharp distaste and antagonistic attitude of those who were raised with a "Sister White sez" club. We are making peace with her now... or at least many of us are. And the new generation who, because of their parents rejection of her, do not know her at all, are finding her interesting and valuable... and address her, as they hear others who value her, by the simple unadorned name, Ellen.

If you are of the generation where it was considered disrespectful to address even close relatives by their first names unless accompanied by a title... then this may not be within your comfort zone. But please do not judge the attitude of others towards her by the title with which they reference her.

While Adventists still use her full name, Ellen White, when communicating formally with others not of our faith communion, within the "family" she is well known enough so she, like Heschell, needs only the one name to signify her importance to her church.

Believe it or not I have been ticked off (gently) myself for calling people by their first names, and even for calling the prophet "Ellen White" rather than "Sister Ellen White." I have children and know something of the new trends in addressing people. I thought I had adapted to the changes, but perhaps I still have a ways to go. In context, it did feel like "Ellen" was a put down. But I'm sorry, AwesomeTenor and readers, if "Ellen" was said within the framework of Watchbird's explanation above, and really did reflect "a new comfort and affection for her."

[lookin4truth]

Old Testament: Adam, Moses, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joshua, Samuel, David, Solomon, Esther, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezra, etc. etc. etc.

New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, etc. etc. etc.

And just a sample of what Jesus was called:

Mat 3:15 And Jesus answering
Mat 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized
Mat 4:1 Then was Jesus
Mat 4:7 Jesus said unto him

It is not scripture that directs us to give titles.

Mat 23:1-12 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, (2) Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: (3) All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. (4) For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. (5) But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, (6) And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, (7) And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. (8) But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. (9) And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. (10) Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. (11) But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. (12) And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.


I find quite often that those who insist on being called by a title are very often those who are not humble, but proud.

[GRAT]

Where would Moses have found Jasper out in the desert?

Exodus 24:12 NIV The Lord said to Moses, "Come up to me on the mountain and stay here, and I will give you the tablets of stone, with the law and commands I have written for their instruction."

I didn't hear the whole sermon, just 2 or 3 minutes so may have misunderstood but that was my recollection. To answer the question - If God wanted to write his law on jasper or sapphire or any other substance it would be no problem for him to do so.

Exodus 24: 9 & 10 Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the 70 elders of Isreal went up and saw the God of Isreal. Under his feet was something like a pavement made of sapphire, clear as the sky itself.

Exodus 34 talks about Moses cutting out the new stone tablets like the first ones.

[Brick Step]

Maybe off topic but I heard part of a sermon by Dwight Nelson where he indicated (if I understood correctly) he felt that the stone the 10 commandments were written on may have been made of the same material that the throne of God was made of or sat on - Jasper maybe? Anyway I liked the thought.

I don't think your comment is off topic. Prs Oxentenko (sorry if the spelling is wrong) and David Asscherick have also preached on 3ABN that the tables of stone upon which God wrote the Ten Commandments, were pieces of blue sapphire stone cut out of the throne of God - or the pavement under it. They may be right, but I'm not sure of their argument, and have further questions about the second tables of stone which Moses had to find and prepare himself. But of one thing I am sure from my study of God's Word, - the Ten Commandments are a transcript of the character of the eternal God and in no way, shape or form were "nailed to the cross." Any interpretation of Colossians 2:14 that works towards the belief that the moral law was done away with at the cross, contradicts the rest of Scripture, and has to be a false arguement.

"Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." Romans 3:31.

I think the reasons for Christ's death on the cross are beautifully summarized in this statement:

“It was in order that the heavenly universe might see the conditions of the covenant of redemption that Christ bore the penalty in behalf of the human race. The throne of Justice must be eternally and forever made secure, even tho the race be wiped out, and another creation populate the earth. By the sacrifice Christ was about to make, all doubts would be forever settled, and the human race would be saved if they would return to their allegiance. Christ alone could restore honor to God’s government. The cross of Calvary would be looked upon by the unfallen worlds, by the heavenly universe, by Satanic agencies, by the fallen race, and every mouth would be stopped. In making His infinite sacrifice Christ would exalt and honor the law. He would make known the exalted character of God’s government, which could not in any way be changed to meet man in his sinful condition.” Ellen White, Signs of the Times, July 12, 1899 (ST, Vol 4, p. 44). Emphasis supplied.

This post has been edited by Brick Step: Nov 6 2007, 05:44 PM

[inga]

We agree on it not being the 10 commandments that were nailed to the cross. We agree that Paul was using metaphorical language. We disagree when you switch to literal language and claim that he was talking about the ceremonial law.... when the language used does not speak of laws but writings... accusations, in fact.... against us... each one of us. And what Paul is saying is that Christ took all of these bills of indebtedness against us and wrote "paid in full" with his o

Yes, yes! That's what I understood awesumtenor to be saying, and I agree.

In the quote Pickle brought to us Ellen White's point was that the Ten Commandments were not nailed to the cross, and we all agree on that. It is best not to expand her intention to include the precise meaning of the "handwriting." It is apparent that she did not fully understand the passage ... Her understanding made sense in the light of a misunderstanding of the sanctuary services -- whether her own or believers of her time.

When you understand the sanctuary teaching, it makes absolutely no sense at all to call the sanctuary services with its attendant ceremonial laws as a "handwriting of ordinances" against us. These services were not/are not (currently in the heavenly sanctuary) "against us." They were/are for us. They were a figure (a sandbox illustration, if you will) of the gospel -- of the work of Jesus Christ to save us by his substitutionary death and the grace He supplies to each believer. (On the other hand, a misunderstanding/distortion of the sanctuary services and the attendant ceremonial laws certainly made them "against" the believer, but that was never God's intent.")

However, there is definitely a "handwriting" against us -- that is the record of our sins. It condemns us to eternal death. It was this record of our debt that Christ took out of the way, nailing it to his cross. Try reading the passage that way, and see if it doesn't make perfect sense.

Reading the "handwriting of ordinances" as the sacrificial system only makes sense if you misunderstand God's intent in the sanctuary services to be "against us." (Did God really burden the Israelites with a system that was "against them"? And did He later convert that negative system to a positive experience?? Makes no sense ... )

There is such a thing as a growing understanding of revealed truth. The new understanding does not contradict the body of truth that has already been thoroughly proven. And the interpretation of the "handwriting" as the record of our indebtedness clarifies the text without contradicting previously held truth -- unless you wish to posit that Ellen White was the end-all of all truth. (She did not claim this.)

This post has been edited by inga: Nov 6 2007, 06:57 PM

[inga]

Prs Oxentenko (sorry if the spelling is wrong) and David Asscherick have also preached on 3ABN that the tables of stone upon which God wrote the Ten Commandments, were pieces of blue sapphire stone cut out of the throne of God - or the pavement under it.

Maybe these gentlemen have spent so much time at 3ABN that they have partaken of the "anointedness" of certain others there, and their own fanciful imagination has now become inspired fact?

[Shiny Penny]

In regard to the question of the nature of the rocks where the true Mount Sinai is located, and for those who believe in Ellen White as a prophet of God, I quote the following, just out of interest.

“When the children of Israel left Rephidim they pursued their journey, winding up a narrow opening through the bold granite rocks of the desert mountains. They gradually ascended higher and higher, until there opened before them a wide extended plain, enclosed by granite ridges and mountain peaks towering toward the heavens. Horeb's range stood before them in somber majesty, its rocky crags towering aloft directed the eyes of the travelers heavenward. Awful, silent grandeur reigned over all. What a contrast was this scene to the busy activity of Egypt! Here there was nothing to distract the mind, nothing to speak to the senses but the stern granite pinnacles pointing toward heaven. God had commanded Moses to bring his people to this place of natural solitude and sublimity, that they might hear his voice, and receive the statute book of heaven.

“Fifty days previous to this the pillar of fire had lighted the path through the Red Sea that God had miraculously opened before the marching multitudes of his people. They had since then made their way slowly onward through the desert; and God, by his miraculous power, had wrought for them in their necessity. When they were parched with thirst they had murmured against God, forgetful of what he had done for them; but God did not forget them, he gave them water from the flinty rock, and rained down bread from heaven to satisfy their hunger; and, through his providence, taught them lessons of faith in his power.” EGW, Signs of the Times, 7 March, 1878.

“The flagon of water was poured into one, and a flagon of wine into the other [this is speaking of the Feast of Tabernacles]; and the contents of both flowed into a pipe which communicated with the Kedron, and was conducted to the Dead Sea. This display of the consecrated water represented the fountain that at the command of God had gushed from the granite rock to quench the thirst of the children of Israel. Then the jubilant strains rang forth, "The Lord Jehovah is my strength and song;" "therefore with joy shall we draw water out of the wells of salvation." EGW, Signs of the Times, 23 September, 1897.

Thanks for this information. Very enlightening.

[Shiny Penny]

I find quite often that those who insist on being called by a title are very often those who are not humble, but proud.

It seems so to me as well, but is "Brother" or "Sister" a title? I think no more of a title than Aunt or Uncle.

[awesumtenor]

In regard to the question of the nature of the rocks where the true Mount Sinai is located, and for those who believe in Ellen White as a prophet of God, I quote the following, just out of interest.

“When the children of Israel left Rephidim they pursued their journey, winding up a narrow opening through the bold granite rocks of the desert mountains. They gradually ascended higher and higher, until there opened before them a wide extended plain, enclosed by granite ridges and mountain peaks towering toward the heavens. Horeb's range stood before them in somber majesty, its rocky crags towering aloft directed the eyes of the travelers heavenward. Awful, silent grandeur reigned over all. What a contrast was this scene to the busy activity of Egypt! Here there was nothing to distract the mind, nothing to speak to the senses but the stern granite pinnacles pointing toward heaven. God had commanded Moses to bring his people to this place of natural solitude and sublimity, that they might hear his voice, and receive the statute book of heaven.

“Fifty days previous to this the pillar of fire had lighted the path through the Red Sea that God had miraculously opened before the marching multitudes of his people. They had since then made their way slowly onward through the desert; and God, by his miraculous power, had wrought for them in their necessity. When they were parched with thirst they had murmured against God, forgetful of what he had done for them; but God did not forget them, he gave them water from the flinty rock, and rained down bread from heaven to satisfy their hunger; and, through his providence, taught them lessons of faith in his power.” EGW, Signs of the Times, 7 March, 1878.

“The flagon of water was poured into one, and a flagon of wine into the other [this is speaking of the Feast of Tabernacles]; and the contents of both flowed into a pipe which communicated with the Kedron, and was conducted to the Dead Sea. This display of the consecrated water represented the fountain that at the command of God had gushed from the granite rock to quench the thirst of the children of Israel. Then the jubilant strains rang forth, "The Lord Jehovah is my strength and song;" "therefore with joy shall we draw water out of the wells of salvation." EGW, Signs of the Times, 23 September, 1897.

For those inclined to attribute to EGW that which she rejected, consider this from this document put out by the Ellen G. White Estate which says, in part, the following:

Realize That Prophets Are Not Verbally Inspired, Nor Are They Infallible or Inerrant

"I was led to conclude and most firmly believe that every word that you ever spoke in public or private, that every letter you wrote under any and all circumstances, was as inspired as the ten commandments. I held that view with absolute tenacity against innumerable objections raised to it by many who were occupying prominent positions in the [Adventist] cause," wrote Dr. David Paulson to Ellen White on April 19, 1906. Deeply concerned over the nature of Ellen White's inspiration, Paulson wondered whether he should continue to hold such a rigid view. In the process he raised the question of verbal inspiration and the related issues of infallibility and inerrancy. Since a correct understanding of such issues is of crucial importance in reading Ellen White and/or the Bible, we will examine each of them in this section.

Mrs. White replied to Paulson on June 14, 1906. "My brother," she penned, "you have studied my writings diligently, and you have never found that I have made any such claims [to verbal inspiration], neither will you find that the pioneers in our cause ever made such claims" for her writings. She went on to illustrate inspiration in her writings by referring to the inspiration of the Bible writers. Even though God had inspired the Biblical truths, they were "expressed in the words of men." She saw the Bible as representing "a union of the divine and the human." Thus "the testimony is conveyed through the imperfect expression of human language, yet it is the testimony of God" (Selected Messages, book 1, pp. 24-26).

Such sentiments represent Ellen White's consistent witness across time. "The Bible," she wrote in 1886, "is written by inspired men, but it is not God's mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity. God, as a writer, is not represented. . . . The writers of the Bible were God's penmen, not His pen. . . .

"It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired. Inspiration acts not on the man's words or his expressions but on the man himself, who, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, is imbued with thoughts. But the words receive the impress of the individual mind. The divine mind is diffused. The divine mind and will is combined with the human mind and will; thus the utterances of the man are the word of God" (ibid., p. 21).

We see the problematic nature of the issue of verbal inspiration illustrated in the life of D. M. Canright, at one time a leading minister in the denomination, but its foremost critic between 1887 and 1919. Canright bitterly opposed Ellen White. His 1919 book against her asserted that "every line she wrote, whether in articles, letters, testimonies or books, she claimed was dictated to her by the Holy Ghost, and hence must be infallible" (Life of Mrs. E. G. White, p. 9). We have seen above that Ellen White herself took just the opposite position, but that didn't stop the damage being done by those with a false theory of inspiration.

Before we go any further, perhaps we should define our terms. Webster's New World Dictionary describes "infallible" as "1. incapable of error; never wrong. 2. not liable to fail, go wrong, make a mistake, etc." It renders "inerrant" as "not erring, making no mistakes." It is essentially those definitions that many people import into the realm of the Bible and Ellen White's writings.

As to infallibility, Mrs. White plainly writes, "I never claimed it; God alone is infallible." Again she stated that "God and heaven alone are infallible" (Selected Messages, book 1, p. 37). While she claimed that "God's Word is infallible" (ibid., p. 416), we will see below that she did not mean that the Bible (or her writings) were free from error at all points.

To the contrary, in the introduction to The Great Controversy she sets forth her position quite concisely: "The Holy Scriptures are to be accepted as an authoritative, infallible revelation of His will" (p. vii). That is, she did not claim that the work of God's prophets is infallible in all its details, but that it is infallible in terms of revealing God's will to men and women. In a similar statement Ellen White commented that "His Word . . . is plain on every point essential to the salvation of the soul" (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 5, p. 706).

W. C. White treats the same issue when he observes: "Where she has followed the description of historians or the exposition of Adventist writers, I believe that God has given her discernment to use that which is correct and in harmony with truth regarding all matters essential to salvation. If it should be found by faithful study that she has followed some expositions of prophecy which in some detail regarding dates we cannot harmonize with our understanding of secular history, it does not influence my confidence in her writings as a whole any more than my confidence in the Bible is influenced by the fact that I cannot harmonize many of the statements regarding chronology" (Selected Messages, book 3, pp. 449, 450; italics supplied).

In summary, it appears that Mrs. White's use of the term infallibility has to do with the Bible being completely trustworthy as a guide to salvation. She doesn't mix that idea with the concept that the Bible or her writings are free from all possible errors of a factual nature.

Thus the faithful reader's belief is not shaken if he or she discovers that Matthew attributed a Messianic prophecy, written centuries before Christ's birth, to Jeremiah when it was actually Zechariah who inferred that Christ would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver (see Matt. 27:9, 10; Zech. 11:12, 13). Nor will one be dismayed over the fact that 1 Samuel 16:10, 11 lists David as the eighth son of Jesse, but 1 Chronicles 2:15 refers to him as the seventh. Neither will faith be affected because the prophet Nathan wholeheartedly approved of King David's building of the Temple but the next day had to backtrack and tell David that God didn't want him to build it (see 2 Sam. 7; 1 Chron. 17). Prophets make mistakes.

The same kind of factual errors can be discovered in Ellen White's writings as are found in the Bible. The writings of God's prophets are infallible as a guide to salvation, but they are not inerrant or without error. Part of the lesson is that we need to read for the central lessons of Scripture and Ellen White rather than the details.

What is important to remember at this point is that those who struggle over such problems as inerrancy and absolute infallibility are fighting a human-made problem. It is not anything that God ever claimed for the Bible or Ellen White ever claimed for the Bible or her writings. Inspiration for her had to do with the "practical purposes" (Selected Messages, book 1, p. 19) of human and divine relationships in the plan of salvation. We need to let God speak to us in His mode, rather than to superimpose our rules over God's prophets and then reject them if they don't live up to our expectations of what we think God should have done. Such an approach is a human invention that places our own authority over the Word of God. It makes us the judges of God and His Word. But such a position is not Biblical; nor is it according to the way Ellen White has counseled the church. We need to read God's Word and Mrs. White's writings for the purpose for which He gave them and not let our modern concerns and definitions of purpose and accuracy come between us and His prophets.

Avoid Making the Counsels "Prove" Things They Were Never Intended to Prove

In the previous section we noted that Ellen White did not claim verbal inspiration for her writings or the Bible, nor did she classify them as either inerrant or infallible in the sense of being free from factual mistakes. In spite of the efforts of Mrs. White and her son to move people away from too rigid a view of inspiration, many have continued on in that line. Down through the history of the denomination some have sought to use Ellen White's writings and the Bible for purposes for which God never intended them. Likewise, claims have been made for prophetic writings that transcend their purpose.

As a result, we find individuals who go to her writings to substantiate such things as historical facts and dates. Thus S. N. Haskell could write to Ellen White that he and his friends would "give more for one expression in your testimony than for all the histories you could stack between here and Calcutta" (S. N. Haskell to E. G. White, May 30, 1910).

Yet Ellen White never claimed that the Lord provided every historical detail in her works. To the contrary, she tells us that she generally went to the same sources available to us to get the historical facts that she used to fill out the outlines of the struggle between good and evil across the ages that she portrays so nicely in The Great Controversy. In regard to the writing of that volume, she wrote in its preface that "where a historian has so grouped together events as to afford, in brief, a comprehensive view of the subject, or has summarized details in a convenient manner, his words have been quoted; but in some instances no specific credit has been given, since the quotations are not given for the purpose of citing that writer as authority, but because his statement affords a ready and forcible presentation of the subject." Her purpose in such books as The Great Controversy was "not so much . . . to present new truths concerning the struggles of former times, as to bring out facts and principles which have a bearing on coming events" (p. xii).

That statement of purpose is crucial in understanding her use of history. Her intention was to trace the dynamics of the conflict between good and evil across time. That was her message. The historical facts merely enriched its tapestry. She was not seeking to provide incontrovertible historical data. In actuality, as she put it, the "facts" she used were "well known and universally acknowledged by the Protestant world" (ibid., p. xi).

What is true of Ellen White's use of facts in post-Biblical church history is also true of her practice when writing of the Biblical period. As a result, she could ask her sons that they request "Mary [Willie's wife] to find me some histories of the Bible that would give me the order of events. I have nothing and can find nothing in the library here" (E. G. White to W. C. White and J. E. White, Dec. 22, 1885).

"Regarding Mother's writings," W. C. White told Haskell, "she has never wished our brethren to treat them as authority on history. . . . When '[The Great] Controversy' was written, Mother never thought that the readers would take it as an authority on historical dates and use it to settle controversies, and she does not now feel that it ought to be used in that way." (W. C. White to S. N. Haskell, Oct. 31, 1912; italics supplied; cf. Selected Messages, book 3, pp. 446, 447.)

Twenty years later W. C. White wrote that "in our conversations with her [Ellen White] regarding the truthfulness and the accuracy of what she had quoted from historians, she expressed confidence in the historians from whom she had drawn, but never would consent to the course pursued by a few men who took her writings as a standard and endeavored by the use of them to prove the correctness of one historian as against the correctness of another. From this I gained the impression that the principal use of the passage quoted from historians was not to make a new history, not to correct errors in history, but to use valuable illustrations to make plain important spiritual truths" (W. C. White to L. E. Froom, Feb. 18, 1932).

Not only do we need to avoid using Ellen White to "prove" the details of history, but the same caution must be expressed in the realm of the details of science. In saying this I do not mean to imply that there is not a great deal of accuracy in the scientific inferences of Ellen White's writings--and the Bible's, for that matter--but that we must not seek to prove this and that scientific detail from them.

Let me illustrate. Some claim that John Calvin, the great sixteenth-century Reformer, resisted Copernicus's discovery that the earth rotated around the sun by quoting Psalm 93:1: "The world also is stablished; that it cannot be moved." In a similar vein, many have pointed out that the Bible talks about the four corners of the earth and the fact that the sun "comes up" and "goes down." In such cases, the Bible is merely making incidental remarks rather than setting forth scientific doctrine.

Remember that the Bible and Ellen White's writings are not intended to be divine encyclopedias for things scientific and historical. Rather they are to reveal our human hopelessness and then point us to the solution in salvation through Jesus. In the process, God's revelation provides a framework in which we can understand the bits and pieces of historical and scientific knowledge gained through other lines of study.

If you go to the Sinai desert and the wilderness of Sin today you will find the same rock formations that were in the same places 3800 years or so ago when the children of Israel were walking in circles in the sand... and it's not granite... and despite your insisting you don't believe her infallible, the fact remains the only reason you are adamant that the rocks must be granite is because she said so. In doing so you are doing what we are told not to do... and, BTW, "flinty rock" is sedimentary, not igneous...which points to sandstone and away from granite...

In His service,
Mr. J

[Johann]

This discussion reminds me of some remarks Dr. Frank Marsh made more than half a century ago in one of his classes on creation at Emmanuel Missionary College. He pointed out how the insistence that Scripture and Ellen White are verbally inspired, and "our" understanding of it could get us into trouble. He claimed that certain conservative Christians taught for centuries that all men have one rib less than woman since a rib was taken out of Adam to create Eve.

Christians were forbidden to count the ribs in the male body. If the did they showed their lack of faith in the verbal inspiration of Scripture. Where is our faith if we discover there is no granite at Sinai? Should we not check?

Some of you will remember that Dr. Frank Marsh was one of our most stalwarth defenders of Creationism in his day.

[Pickle]

If you go to the Sinai desert and the wilderness of Sin today you will find the same rock formations that were in the same places 3800 years or so ago when the children of Israel were walking in circles in the sand... and it's not granite... and despite your insisting you don't believe her infallible, the fact remains the only reason you are adamant that the rocks must be granite is because she said so. In doing so you are doing what we are told not to do... and, BTW, "flinty rock" is sedimentary, not igneous...which points to sandstone and away from granite...

In His service,
Mr. J

What makes it difficult is that we must first settle on where Mt. Sinai is, something that is by no means 100% uncertain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Mount_Sinai

As far as granite being present in the area about what is called Mt. Sinai today, see http://www.sinai4you.com/sina/ after noting where Mt. Sinai is located on the map at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Sinai

"Geologically Sinai can be roughly divided into three areas. The northern region consists of sand dunes and fossil .... The landscape is flat and uniform, interrupted only by some vast sand- and limestone hills.

"The scarcely inhabited Al Tih Plateau is the central geological area with limestone .... The highlands extend towards the south until it goes over into the third area consisting of granite and volcanic rock. Limestone and sandstone sediments are replaced by granite and basalt."

As far as "flinty rock" goes, Ellen White was using the words found in the KJV of Deut. 32:13. Cf. Deut. 8:5 and Ps. 114:8. Thus, there really doesn't have to be what we call flint at Sinai in order for her words to be an accurate reference to Deut. 32:13, but I'm not saying there is no flint at wherever the biblical Mt. Sinai is.

Strong's indicates that the word "flint" or "flinty" may be derived from another word "in the sense of hardness." I see no indication in Job 28:9, where the word is translated "rock," that it has to mean what we call flint in that particular verse.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-272059/article-9041088 uses the term "flinty rock" to refer to a hardened group of rocks known as hornfels, which happen to be metamorphic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornfel). If Britannica can use "flinty rock" to refer to something other than the sedimentary form of quartz known as flint, I suppose we can too.

[västergötland]

So we do not know where the mountain is and we do not know what it is made up of. Is there anything here that we are not speculating about?

[Pickle]

However, there is definitely a "handwriting" against us -- that is the record of our sins. It condemns us to eternal death. It was this record of our debt that Christ took out of the way, nailing it to his cross. Try reading the passage that way, and see if it doesn't make perfect sense.

Yet there may be other difficulties with that view that we need to think through. If nailing the record of sins to the cross means that no longer can be brought "every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil" (Eccl. 12:14), then that could be a problem.

Reading the "handwriting of ordinances" as the sacrificial system only makes sense if you misunderstand God's intent in the sanctuary services to be "against us." (Did God really burden the Israelites with a system that was "against them"? And did He later convert that negative system to a positive experience?? Makes no sense ... )

Can we separate the law of Moses from the record of sins? If not, then the record of sins idea is bound up with the ceremonial law idea, and both are correct.

If Peter could call the ceremonial law "a yoke ... which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear" (Acts 15:10), then I would think Paul could call it "contrary to us" and "against us."

To some extent the 10 Commandments are also "against us" when we have sinned, for 2 Cor. 3:7, 9 call them a ministry of condemnation and death.

Within the tabernacle of testimony was the ark of testimony, and within the ark of testimony were the tables of testimony, a fact alluded to in the words, "Let the Lord GOD be witness against you, the Lord from his holy temple" (Mic. 1:2). We may not like to think of God being a witness against us, or of His law being against us, but these things are indeed true when we look at what God and His law (any part of it) think of sin.

Lastly, we have the often quoted, "Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live" (Ezek. 20:25). Thus this verse, which appears to be talking about the wilderness sojourn, refers to parts of the law of Moses which were indeed against them and contrary to them.

[Pickle]

Before you attribute her stating it to the Holy Spirit, you first have to show she didn't get it from Gill... unless, of course, you are saying Gill is now an inspired writer... along with Matthew Henry and Clarke and Barnes... since all make the claim... rather than going through all these gyrations to make it seem a divine revelation, it makes far more sense to say this was something she retained from the Methodism of her youth, where she was exposed to all of the above commentators and which she presumed true because of the ubiquitous nature of the teaching...

In His service,
Mr. J

I think following such a course would be doing to her writings what we have been explicitly warned against doing to the Bible:

Both in the {Battle Creek} Tabernacle and in the college the subject of inspiration has been taught, and finite men have taken it upon themselves to say that some things in the Scriptures were inspired and some were not. I was shown that the Lord did not inspire the articles on inspiration published in the Review, neither did He approve their endorsement before our youth in the college. When men venture to criticize the Word of God, they venture on sacred, holy ground, and had better fear and tremble and hide their wisdom as foolishness. God sets no man to pronounce judgment on His Word, selecting some things as inspired and discrediting others as uninspired. The testimonies have been treated in the same way; but God is not in this.--Letter 22, 1889.

But then again, we have been warned that the last deception of Satan would be to make of none effect the Testimonies, and thus it should not shock us if toward the end of time some would endeavor to make of none effect the above counsel.