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

[västergötland]

It would help if I could remember the questions I gave. This is a hypothetical. At the time there was a big and prolonged situation involving many others who, as I recollect, had already in various ways tried to make at least some of the points I had turned into questions. New faces did not in significant respects understand what had gone before.

Could you further explain why you are pressing the point about asking questions without revealing the sources out of which those questions arose.

I have no argument with at least most of the rest of what you said in this post, and have made those points myself over the years. The problems in the life of the church come with application of those points, of course.

Amen and amen to the many wonderful Bible promises that if we (even the humbles of our number who can't read Hebrew or Greek - and we of course still need Hebrew and Greek scholars) seek Jesus and the truth with all that we have, we will find Him and we will know the truth.

Just qurious is all.

[Brick Step]

Awesometenor.
I feel no resistance whatsoever to answering the questions to which you refer. My original reason for not answering the specific questions at issue was merely a technical problem I was experiencing. I had run out of time, lost concentration, and forgot the original questions.

If a position is wrong, it is still wrong whomever you can find to support it, right?

Of course! That goes for supporting voices on any side of an argument.

Or do you mean to say that something that is wrong becomes right if it finds support with Ellen?

The simple answer to this question is, of course, “No!” But over the years, in Ellen White’s writings as the writings of the Bible, there have been many, many allegations about mistakes that have later proven to be no mistakes at all – a point I elaborated upon earlier in my post http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?s...mp;#entry217891 As everyone well knows, in the Bible as well as Ellen White’s writings, there’s been a lot of controversy over what constitutes a mistake. Human feelings, impressions and reason are simply not enough on their own to determine what is a mistake.

“… support with Ellen?” Some would see that as a put down. Seventh-day Adventists are usually courteous enough to refer to her as “Ellen White”, or “Sister Ellen White.”

Or do you mean to say that nothing that Ellen supports could possibly be wrong?

No I do not mean to say that. She was a fallible mortal and a prolific writer. But I feel we lose much if we play fast and loose with her major writings, tossing out whatever happens to get in the way of a favoured position. This approach seems inevitably to lead to a similar attitude towards the Bible. I’ve seen the fruits of this line of action in the life of the church, and they are not good.

Awesometenor, the position I have taken on Colossians 2:14, Ellen White and other issues is not just my own, but that supported over time by many respected Bible scholars in the SDA church. Your judgments of some of my statements and motivations are way off the mark and I think quite uncalled for. IMO you should sprinkle in an occasional IMO with your assertions. It is one thing to receive and respond to scrutiny, but your posts to me breathe impatience and hostility. Is there not as much onus upon you to consider the journey I am on, as for me to consider the journey you are on? If there is no trust at all flowing between two parties, then I think it is a futile works thing for them to engage in close dialogue. If either you or I need to modify or change a belief or attitude, God will reach us through somebody else, or in some other way. I pray that He will.

This post has been edited by Brick Step: Nov 6 2007, 05:21 AM

[Pickle]

Since the Holy Spirit did endorse in PP 365 the view that Col. 2:14 is referring to the ceremonial law, I will mention the following reasons why Col. 2:14 cannot refer to the tables of stone:

• The 10 Commandments were finger writing, not handwriting.
• You can't blot out something written in stone, with either water or an eraser.
• You can't drive a nail through stone.
• Use a sledge hammer and a railroad spike, and all you'll end up doing is breaking them.

[watchbird]

“… support with Ellen?” Some would see that as a put down. Seventh-day Adventists are usually courteous enough to refer to her as “Ellen White”, or “Sister Ellen White.”

"Courteous" is defined by the culture in which one lives. It has been several decades since I had occasion to ask a Jew something regarding Abraham Heschell.... and was astounded at his blank look. When I elucidated about him by mentioning a book he had written, he responded... OH... you mean "Heschell".... and to my equally blank look as to what was the difference, he explained that in Jewish circles, when a man was important enough, he was known only by his last name.... and people simply didn't recognize who you meant if you added his first name.

That has only a remote application to our situation with Ellen at the present.

Not long ago, I heard an Adventist scholar tell of how he had related to the different titles by which Ellen White was mostly known during his lifetime... Sister White, Mrs. Ellen G. White, Ellen G. White, Ellen White... and now, just Ellen. He was not critical of the change, but pointed out the real significance of it.... an adaption to the mores of the culture which has moved from the formal to the personal in their addressing of important persons. The change from titles to first names came in North American business at least 30 years ago. It has come more slowly in church circles, but in most places it has arrived there also, and it is not uncommon to hear pastors and church administrators and scholars call each other by their first names... even in a public formal meeting.

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.

[watchbird]

Since the Holy Spirit did endorse in PP 365 the view that Col. 2:14 is referring to the ceremonial law, I will mention the following reasons why Col. 2:14 cannot refer to the tables of stone:

• The 10 Commandments were finger writing, not handwriting.
• You can't blot out something written in stone, with either water or an eraser.
• You can't drive a nail through stone.
• Use a sledge hammer and a railroad spike, and all you'll end up doing is breaking them.

Forget your contrived "list". Since the whole thing is using metaphorical language, such literal "reasons" are not worth the time it takes to list them.

Furthermore, if you are going to take the position that everything Ellen wrote in her long years of writing was "endorsed by the Holy Spirit"... you are going to find yourself in some rather uncomfortable corners when you come across the places where she clearly changed her mind as she grew in knowledge through the passing years.

I suggest you leave the exegetical interpretations of scripture to the scholars. Ellen did many things right. But one thing she was not, was an exegete of scripture, and she seldom wrote exegetically on any passage. That does not mean she was wrong.... except in cases where she clearly was... some of which she corrected in later years herself. But it does mean that her use of scripture for its spiritual lessons should not be allowed to contradict sound exegesis of the text.

[Statrei]

Since the Holy Spirit did endorse in PP 365 the view that Col. 2:14 is referring to the ceremonial law,

Remind me how you know that the Holy Spirit endorsed this view?

[västergötland]

"… support with Ellen?" Some would see that as a put down. Seventh-day Adventists are usually courteous enough to refer to her as "Ellen White", or "Sister Ellen White."

In adition to what WatchBird said, I want to add that the formal titles with Ellen can be seen as hijacked by the groups within Adventism who are Ellenatorious. Those who make Ellen into the likeness of the Roman Catholic Mary. I am conciously making a statement against that by only using the first name.

[västergötland]

Since the Holy Spirit did endorse in PP 365 the view that Col. 2:14 is referring to the ceremonial law, I will mention the following reasons why Col. 2:14 cannot refer to the tables of stone:

• The 10 Commandments were finger writing, not handwriting.
• You can't blot out something written in stone, with either water or an eraser.
• You can't drive a nail through stone.
• Use a sledge hammer and a railroad spike, and all you'll end up doing is breaking them.

So in the classical "last-desperate-effort-to-get-a-message-out" where the hero writes a note using his/her own finger blood, the result is not a handwriting since one finger did all the writing?

You are clearly wrong on your second statement. Water is clearly capable to erase something written in stone. Under the right circumstances it can even go relatively fast, as in within a decade.

You can drive a nail through stone, as for instance when building a stone slate roof and nailing the stones in place. http://www.hometime.com/Howto/projects/roo...oof_2.htm#slate

Of course, but try and use a sledge hammer and a railroad spike on a written paper document and see if that also isnt broken?

This post has been edited by västergötland: Nov 6 2007, 09:19 AM

[Pickle]

Forget your contrived "list". Since the whole thing is using metaphorical language, such literal "reasons" are not worth the time it takes to list them.

It isn't contrived.

As I've told Sunday keepers a number of times who claim that Col. 2:14 is talking about the 10 Commandments anyway, since it's only metaphorical, then Paul chose the wrong metaphors, since the language doesn't fit.

If you think otherwise, then by all means go get a rock and a nail and a hammer, and bang away. Then post a picture of the result showing the rock nailed.

You can nail the New York City phone book with ease, but an engraved piece of granite? No way! And thus Paul did not intend for Col. 2:14 to refer to the 10 Commandments in any way.

But I thought we agreed on that?

Furthermore, if you are going to take the position that everything Ellen wrote in her long years of writing was "endorsed by the Holy Spirit"...

I don't mind discussing that topic, but I didn't mention any such thing. I only referred to PP 365.

I suggest you leave the exegetical interpretations of scripture to the scholars.

I could suggest that you do the same, including when it comes to making pronouncements about other topics, but that would violate basic principles of Protestantism.

J. N. Andrews certainly is considered a scholar, and I was happy to discover that he wrote out the same ideas I came up with.

"It would be absurd to speak of the tables of STONE as NAILED to the cross; or to speak of BLOTTING out what was ENGRAVED in STONE." (History of the Sabbath, p. 139)

But one thing she was not, was an exegete of scripture, and she seldom wrote exegetically on any passage. That does not mean she was wrong.... except in cases where she clearly was... some of which she corrected in later years herself. But it does mean that her use of scripture for its spiritual lessons should not be allowed to contradict sound exegesis of the text.

You can choose to put human reason above what God has testified by His Spirit through His prophet, but I shall not. Yet you aren't really making sense, since "sound exegisis of the text" of Col. 2:14 in no way contradicts what I wrote.

This post has been edited by Pickle: Nov 6 2007, 09:37 AM

[Pickle]

Remind me how you know that the Holy Spirit endorsed this view?

There are many who try to blend these two systems, using the texts that speak of the ceremonial law to prove that the moral law has been abolished; but this is a perversion of the Scriptures. The distinction between the two systems is broad and clear. The ceremonial system was made up of symbols pointing to Christ, to His sacrifice and His priesthood. This ritual law, with its sacrifices and ordinances, was to be performed by the Hebrews until type met antitype in the death of Christ, the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world. Then all the sacrificial offerings were to cease. It is this law that Christ "took . . . out of the way, nailing it to His cross." Colossians 2:14. But concerning the law of Ten Commandments the psalmist declares, "Forever, O Lord, Thy word is settled in heaven." Psalm 119:89. And Christ Himself says, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law. . . . Verily I say unto you"--making the assertion as emphatic as possible--"Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matthew 5:17, 18. Here He teaches, not merely what the claims of God's law had been, and were then, but that these claims should hold as long as the heavens and the earth remain. The law of God is as immutable as His throne. It will maintain its claims upon mankind in all ages.

Published in 1890.

[Pickle]

So in the classical "last-desperate-effort-to-get-a-message-out" where the hero writes a note using his/her own finger blood, the result is not a handwriting since one finger did all the writing?

You are clearly wrong on your second statement. Water is clearly capable to erase something written in stone. Under the right circumstances it can even go relatively fast, as in within a decade.

You can drive a nail through stone, as for instance when building a stone slate roof and nailing the stones in place. http://www.hometime.com/Howto/projects/roo...oof_2.htm#slate

Of course, but try and use a sledge hammer and a railroad spike on a written paper document and see if that also isnt broken?

Go to any cemetary and toss as many buckets of water on the tombstones as you want, and the letters won't disappear.

There is no indication whatsoever in Col. 2:14 that Paul meant a blotting out that takes years to happen.

I have an engraved piece of granite. Come over to my house and drive a nail through it. I dare you to try.

There is no indication whatsoever that God wrote the 10 Commandments on stone akin to slate.

The first time I did this illustration in a sermon, the burly farmer wouldn't try to nail the stone, but he sure went at it with the phone book. I had to stop him because the nail was long enough that it would have gone through the book and the board into the pulpit.

And as many times as I've done this, not once has the paper broke.

[Pickle]

In adition to what WatchBird said, I want to add that the formal titles with Ellen can be seen as hijacked by the groups within Adventism who are Ellenatorious. Those who make Ellen into the likeness of the Roman Catholic Mary. I am conciously making a statement against that by only using the first name.

Interesting.

And how do you make the same point that Jesus made when He said, "Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken" (Luke 24:25)? We certainly can't have folks elevating Ellen White to the Roman Catholic mary, but equally as dangerous is unbelief of the kind Jesus warned about.

[Statrei]

Pickle, you have not shown me how you know the HS endorsed this view.

[Pickle]

I thought I did. Didn't I?

[awesumtenor]

Awesometenor.
I feel no resistance whatsoever to answering the questions to which you refer. My original reason for not answering the specific questions at issue was merely a technical problem I was experiencing. I had run out of time, lost concentration, and forgot the original questions.

This is a *text* medium... and the questions were directly above where you typed your answer...

The simple answer to this question is, of course, “No!” But over the years, in Ellen White’s writings as the writings of the Bible, there have been many, many allegations about mistakes that have later proven to be no mistakes at all – a point I elaborated upon earlier in my post http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?s...mp;#entry217891 As everyone well knows, in the Bible as well as Ellen White’s writings, there’s been a lot of controversy over what constitutes a mistake. Human feelings, impressions and reason are simply not enough on their own to determine what is a mistake.

This still boils down to "EGW said it so it must be true"... your simple answer notwithstanding

“… support with Ellen?” Some would see that as a put down. Seventh-day Adventists are usually courteous enough to refer to her as “Ellen White”, or “Sister Ellen White.”

She was not God; her name cannot be taken in vain nor is it blasphemous to call her by her first name...

No I do not mean to say that. She was a fallible mortal and a prolific writer. But I feel we lose much if we play fast and loose with her major writings, tossing out whatever happens to get in the way of a favoured position. This approach seems inevitably to lead to a similar attitude towards the Bible. I’ve seen the fruits of this line of action in the life of the church, and they are not good.

This is not about EGW... nor is it about what you presume to be "this line of action"... a presumption that is errant, BTW. This is about what the exegete says and whether a specific hermaneutic is consistent with the exegete. That will not change no matter how much you try to make this a referendum on Ellen White.

Awesometenor, the position I have taken on Colossians 2:14, Ellen White and other issues is not just my own, but that supported over time by many respected Bible scholars in the SDA church.

"There is no excuse for any one in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation. " R&H, Dec 20, 1892

This statement is the only motivation for everything I've said in this thread.

Your judgments of some of my statements and motivations are way off the mark and I think quite uncalled for. IMO you should sprinkle in an occasional IMO with your assertions.

Where I state my opinion, I do; here I am stating fact because the bible says what it says, your unwillingness to acknowledge it notwithstanding....

It is one thing to receive and respond to scrutiny, but your posts to me breathe impatience and hostility.

To quote you, "Your judgments of some of my statements and motivations are way off the mark and I think quite uncalled for."

I can take your walk into account... but if you are not yet at the place in said walk where you can handle topics that will question what you believe without your taking it as a personal affront, then perhaps you would be better served to avoid those topics... as EGW notes above "Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation."

If she believed this, then there need be no rush to stave off said close investigation in the name of "defending God's prophet".. nor is there a need to paint those who would closely examine as being anti-EGW... particularly in a topic where she was not even at issue.

In His service,
Mr. J