|
|
Ellen G. White Contradicts By Robert K. Sanders Click here for: ADDENDUM to EGW Contradictions that came later. CONTENTS OF ADDITIONS TO THE BIBLE This list of contradictions is compiled by Pastor Sydney
Cleveland, former Pastor of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and Robert
K. Sanders, former Elder and 37 year member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church
as of 1994. Revised June 2002
This list is revised to include the rebuttals of Seventh-day Adventist
Apologists that call themselves "Volunteers at Ellen-White." They are
challenging Ellen White's Bible contradictions by saying we have taken them out
of context.
I am giving their
rebuttals in
VIOLET
and
then
our replies
to rebuttals in GREEN and RED. This will let you the reader judge
whether or not EGW contradicted the Bible.
"If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him." (Deuteronomy 18:22 NIV) Ellen White was one of the founders of the Seventh-day Adventist church back
in the middle 1800s. She claimed to receive communications from God through
visions, dreams, and angelic visitors. Though long dead, Seventh-day
Adventists continue to claim Ellen White was a
genuine prophetess, and they commonly refer to
her as "the Lord's Messenger" to the
Church. The original document, "Examples of Ellen White Contradicting the Bible, was written as a direct challenge to Ellen G. White's followers to compare her writings to the Bible. Seventh-day Adventists are fond of quoting Isaiah 8:20: "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them" -- mark it carefully, this text did not say there is some light in them, it said "there is no light in them!" Now, on the basis of Isaiah 8:20, let us see if Ellen White agrees with the supreme definer of truth: the Bible. If she does, then there is truly "light" in her. If she does not agree with the Bible, then she is a false prophet leading Seventh-day Adventists into utter darkness." What to look for in the apologist's
rebuttal and our reply. 1.
What
we quoted was truly what EGW actually said and wrote; therefore Ellen White’s
apologists cannot claim we misquoted her. So
there is agreement among us that she actually said the things we have quoted. 2.
Because
Ellen White may have agreed with the Bible in one section of her writings does
not excuse her for contradicting the Bible in other parts of her writings.
Since Ellen G. White repeatedly contradicted herself as well as
Scripture, she repeatedly fails the test of a true Bible prophet. 3. When faced with Ellen White’s many contradictions of Scripture and contradictions of herself, apologists argue: "you have taken EGW statements out of context." So the question you, the reader, must first decide is: have we have taken her statements out of context, or have her apologists taken them out of context? We have always included the full references with each statement we quote so readers can study each one in context. We are confident the evidence clearly demonstrates to our readers that we have told truth! 4.
The APOLOGISTS
at Ellen-White website call us "D&D" to “protect our
identity.” We have never hidden
our work under the shadow of anonymity. Instead,
we have always had our names clearly published as the originator of this
document, and we publish our names on our respective web sites. No one has every had to wonder who we are.
However, Ellen White’s apologists
apparently are ashamed of their work, for they do not have the courage to list
their names or backgrounds as of this writing!
5.
In their rebuttals, the apologists have at times used many words and
circular arguments in order to confuse the issue.
To paraphrase King Solomon: “many words are found in the speech of a
fool” (Ecclesiastes 5:3). We have presented facts in the briefest, clearest possible
manner. For more
information you can e-mail us. The SDA Church agrees that the cannon of the Bible closed 2000 years ago with the book of Revelation. They also tell us that Ellen White's writings are not an addition to the Bible but are just as inspired as the writers of the Bible. This concept, both in theory and practice makes EGW's writings equal to the Bible as far as the average Seventh-day Adventist is concerned. By their accepting Ellen White as a prophetess and "Messenger of God", they unwittingly open the cannon of the Bible. In this they are no different from other cults who likewise proclaim the supremacy of their prophets and leaders. 1. WAS THE PLAN OF SALVATION MADE AFTER THE FALL? EGW: YES "The kingdom of grace was
instituted immediately after the fall of man, when a plan was devised for
the redemption of the guilty race" (Great Controversy, p. 347). BIBLE: NO "For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake" (1 Peter 1:18-20). BIBLE: NO "For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight" (Ephesians 1:4). NOTE: The Gospel of salvation through grace by faith in Jesus Christ was already in existence before the creation of this world. EGW contradicts the Bible by claiming the plan of salvation was devised after the fall of Adam and Eve. Apologist: Here D&D
quote Ellen White saying that the "kingdom of grace" was instituted
and the plan was "devised" immediately after the fall. What they
failed to quote was Ellen White's statements that the plan had actually existed
long before that (see Desire of Ages, p. 22, third paragraph in
particular): "The plan for our redemption was not an afterthought,
a plan formulated after the fall of Adam..." And this statement in
the same book, p. 147: "...every act of Christ's life on earth was in
fulfillment of the plan that had existed from the days of eternity."
There are numerous statements like this in her writings. To get a balanced
view of what Ellen White really said about this issue (and in its proper
context) we recommend the chapter entitled "The
Plan of Redemption" in the book Patriarchs and Prophets. Reply to Rebuttal: 1.
The apologist's argument is EGW got it right in other places. We agree
with this, but here is the problem. The Apologist tries
to confuse the issue by saying EGW got it right
in a different
place while hoping you will not see that she got it wrong in
our quotation: "The
kingdom of grace was instituted immediately after the fall of man, when a plan
was devised for the redemption of the guilty race"
(Great Controversy, p. 347). 2.
Scripture states a
plan was not "devised" after the fall of man by God but before the
world was created! 3.
Here EGW contradicted the Bible; made God
a liar, and the apologists are defending
EGW’s errors. Apologist: The
Bible has several texts like the ones listed above placing the Plan of Salvation
before the creation of the world, but Revelation
13:8 is a bit ambiguous and says that Jesus
was slain at the foundation of the world not before (KJV, NKJV, NIV, AMP,
Weymouth, Young's, LTV). Technically Christ was slain "from the days
of eternity" was He not? Did the prophet John make a mistake?
No. The plan had to go into effect at the Fall of Adam and Eve, but
when did Infinite Wisdom foresee sin and the need for a Savior? From
the days of eternity, of course. (Some
may point out that some versions of the Bible use "the foundation of the
world" to refer to when the Lamb's Book was written as opposed to
when the Lamb was slain. However, the majority of the Bible
scholars who put together the English Bible translations did not come to this
conclusion. Of the major Bible versions King James, New King James,
NIV, AMP, Weymouth, Young's, and LTV (Green) all point to "slain;"
(the NIV says in the margin that it could be written the other way, and
the AMP renders it both ways in the text itself). NASB has it pointing to
the "Book," with the margin stating that it could be referring
to "slain." The RSV and Darby do word it so that that the
"foundation" is referring to the writing in the Lamb's Book. Yet
even without this text, Ellen White's statements don't contradict anything the
Bible says in this regard. She agreed that the plan had been in existence
from "the days of eternity.") Reply to Rebuttal: 1.
The apologists try to confuse you by saying that we do not know when
Christ was slain; was it before the creation of the world or at the foundation
of the world? The
key word in Revelation 13:8 is the Greek "kosmos" (Strongs #G2889)
which means "universe, heavens, earth, world."
It is where we get our English word “cosmos” from.
In English, “cosmos” means “the universe regarded as an orderly,
harmonious whole.” The entire
text is speaking in symbolic terms: there is no literal beast, Jesus is not a
literal lamb and He was not literally slain at creation.
But, through these symbolic terms we clearly understand that Jesus was
“as good as dead” from the beginning of the universe – to say nothing
about from the beginning of the world. Everything
in this text refutes EGW’s apologists no matter how much they try to twist the
Scripture! 2.
The Bible gives the information we need; He was “chosen
before the creation of the world,
but was revealed in these last times for your sake" (1 Peter 1:18-20). This
text tells us it was "before the creation of the world." 3.
EGW
contradicted the Bible by saying; "The
kingdom of grace was instituted immediately after
the fall of man, when
a plan was devised for the redemption of the
guilty race" (Great Controversy, p. 347). The
Bible tells us the "kingdom
of grace" was devised in the eternity that
existed long before the fall of mankind.
According to Ellen White, her god
was caught by surprise when Adam and Eve sinned!
But the God of the Bible knew beforehand that that Adam and Eve
would sin, set up the plan of redemption and instituted the kingdom of grace.
Do you believe the Bible?
Or do you believe EGW and her apologists?
2. WAS ADAM WITH EVE WHEN SHE WAS TEMPTED IN THE
GARDEN? EGW: NO
"The angels had cautioned Eve to beware of separating herself from her
husband while occupied in their daily labor in the garden; with him she would be
in less temptation than if she were alone. But absorbed in her pleasing task,
she unconsciously wandered from his side. On perceiving that she was alone, she
felt an apprehension of danger. ... She soon found herself gazing with mingled
curiosity and admiration upon the forbidden tree" (Patriarchs and
Prophets, pp. 53, 54). BIBLE: YES Gen 3:6 (NIV) 6When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Apologist: This is an
argument over semantics, insisting that "with her" (KJV, NASB, RSV,
Amp & Darby versions, among others, do not include the words "who
was" [with her]) means that he had been with her during her entire
walk to the Tree and conversation with the serpent. Ellen White was
certainly not the inventor of the belief that Eve was alone at the tree. Consider a few facts: Many Bible scholars have taken this position
through the ages, long before Ellen White ever commented on it. The words
"with her"—given in no specific time frame—are hardly enough
evidence to deny all of the circumstances in the above passages. Reply to Rebuttal: 1.
The apologists argument is that the serpent did not acknowledge Adam's
presence therefore he could not be present at the tree. This concept is not
true. The Bible tells us that the serpent engaged the woman in conversation not
Adam. We do the same in our conversation with two people present. We can talk
with one of them looking them in the eye, all the while ignoring the other
person present. 2.
The Bible writer was telling us that it was Eve that accepted the
serpent's challenge and ate the fruit. Eve told the serpent that "WE"
may eat, and not "I can eat", which shows that Adam was with her at
the tree. "The woman said to the serpent, "We
may eat fruit
from the trees in the garden,"(Gen 3:2 NIV) "She also gave some to her
husband, who was with
her,
and he
ate it" (Gen 3:6 NIV). 3.
Adam certainly was not in the south 40 of Eden when Eve gave him the
fruit to eat" who was with her". In other words the Bible does not say
Eve ate the fruit, then took a stroll across Eden and then handed some to Adam
to eat. The
question seems to be what does "with her" mean?
The Hebrew makes it clear that "with does not mean apart. "With"
in Hebrew; 'im, eem; Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament defines 'im
as: "with, beside, by, among, accompanying. …It expresses the concept of
inclusiveness, togetherness, company. … The basic conception conveyed is that
of fellowship, companionship, common experiences." —pp. 676, 677. The
Hebrew-English Lexicon defines 'im as in the "society of, or in the
"company" of someone. —p.196. 1.
We will show three Bible examples
from many usages of "with her.
" You can then see "with her" does not mean apart as the
apologist would want you to believe. "Before
he had finished praying, Rebekah came out with her jar on her
shoulder.." (Gen 24:15 NIV) 2.
The apologist contends Adam was not present at the tree because "Eve
doesn't say "the serpent beguiled us, and we did eat"
but rather, " the serpent beguiled me,
and I did
eat." (verse 13). This is simply an admission by Eve that she was the one
that was beguiled/deceived
by the serpent. She was accepting full responsibility for the sin and did not
blame Adam who was "with her". The fact is that the Bible says,
"she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate
it." This
is also in full agreement with 1 Timothy 2:14 which tells us “Adam was not the
one deceived, it was the woman who was deceived.”
But then, EGW contradicts this Scripture as well (see #3 below). 3.
There is not one word in the Bible that tells us that Eve left Adam's
side and was alone at the tree as claimed by Mrs. White and her apologists.
Gen 3:7 (NIV)
EGW: The serpent plucked the fruit of the forbidden tree and placed
it in the hands of the half-reluctant Eve. Then he reminded her of her
own words, that God had forbidden them to touch it, lest they die. She would
receive no more harm from eating the fruit, he declared, than from touching
it. Perceiving no evil results from what she had done, Eve grew bolder. When
she "saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the
eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit
thereof, and did eat." It was grateful to the taste, and as she ate, she
seemed to feel a vivifying power, and imagined herself entering upon a higher
state of existence. Without a fear she plucked and ate. And now, having
herself transgressed, she became the agent of Satan in working the ruin of her
husband. In a state of strange, unnatural excitement, with her hands filled
with the forbidden fruit, she sought his presence, and related all that had
occurred.
The Bible says nothing about the serpent plucking fruit and handing it to Eve. The Bible says nothing about Eve taking her hands filled with fruit to Adam. All non bibilcal.
Writing to Elders Prescott and Daniells on October 11, 1903, she compared The Living Temple to forbidden fruit, and stated: Like Adam and Eve, who took the apple from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and ate it, our own sheep and lambs are swallowing the deceptive morsels or error offered them in the pages of this book. I am instructed to warn our brethren and sisters not to discuss the nature of our God.--Letter 224, 1903.Why should Christians be warned by EGW not to discuss the nature of God? The Bible does not forbid this but gives us much information about God. For 2000 years Christians have been discussing the nature of God and then in 1903 according to EGW we are not to discuss God's nature. What is wrong with this picture??????3. WAS ADAM DECEIVED BY SATAN? EGW:
YES "Satan,
who is the father of lies, deceived Adam in a similar way, telling him that he
need not obey God, that he would not die if he transgressed the law" (Evangelism,
p. 598). BIBLE: NO "And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner" (1 Timothy 2:14). Note: Who showed E. G. White that Satan deceived Adam, when the Bible says Adam was not deceived? So who is deceiving us? Apologist: The
text here only builds the case against allegation #2 on this list. It was
Eve who was at the tree, "deceived," and then her downfall led to
Adam's. When we read all that Ellen White has to say about that event we
see that her statement here is referring to "Satan" in the general
terms of his plan for the couple's fall (much like when we talk of Satan
tempting us when in reality it is probably one of the demons that are doing it
since Satan is not omnipresent). This one is like trying to explain if the
Pharisees were "deceived" or not when they crucified Christ. In
one sense they weren't; they knew that they were killing an innocent man who fit
every biblical description of the Messiah (and they would be accountable for
their sin). In another sense, they were deceived because they had
hardened their hearts until they were self-deceived. Adam had to
have been "deceived" in some fashion because after all, he did eat
the fruit (had he not been deceived in any manner he would never have done so). Reply to Rebuttal: 1.
The apologists say; "Adam
had to have been "deceived" in some fashion."
It is typical of many SDAs to depart from the plain Word of God in
order to support EGW.
Here her
apologists take Ellen White above the Bible! And
they appeal to other commentators who made the same mistake EGW did.
Doesn’t this indicate that Ellen White got her ideas about Adam not
being at the tree and being deceived from the
commentators of her day rather than from Scripture or in vision from God? 2.
Does the Bible tell us that Satan told Adam, "that
he need not obey God"? Of course not. This
is another of EGW's fantasies that the apologists support. 3.
The Bible says very plainly "Adam was not the one
deceived" EGW:
ANGEL "Through an angel messenger the divine warning was conveyed: 'If thou
doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?'" (Patriarchs and Prophets, p.
74). BIBLE: LORD "Then the Lord said to Cain, 'Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right will you not be accepted?' ... So Cain went out from the Lord's presence" (Genesis 4:6, 7, 10, 13, 15, 16). NOTE: SDAs often try to reconcile this contradiction by claiming the Lord spoke to Cain through an angel. If so, then why didn't the Bible tell us the truth? When Moses wrote this account, why didn't God tell Moses He spoke to Cain through an angel? Why would our omniscient God let Moses write down the wrong thing? And, if EGW is right, then Jesus was wrong when He said in John 17:17, "Your word is truth." For EGW to be right, the Bible, Moses, and Jesus Christ all have to be wrong! Apologist: D&D
left out the sentence in Patriarchs and Prophets that appears just
before their Ellen White quote. It says: "And the Lord
said unto Cain, 'Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?' " Here the issue is really that word
"angel." The word "angel" means "messenger."
The Bible has plenty of examples where the "Angel" of the Lord is
referring to God Himself (see Gen. 16:7,13; 22:11-18; 31:11-13; 48:15,16; Ex.
3:2-6, Acts 3:25; 7:30-32; Num. 22:21 through 23:5; Judges 6:11-40; 13:3-22; see
also Exodus 23:20,21) D&D reject this explanation (previously given
by Adventists, apparently) insisting that since Moses said "the Lord,"
the word "angel" cannot be correct. The conclusion is
given then, that since Jesus said "Thy word is truth" (referring to
the Bible) and since Moses did not use the word "angel" (while Ellen
White did) then anyone who accepts this answer is calling the Bible, Moses, and
Jesus wrong. We feel that the dozen-plus texts listed above prove
otherwise. Reply to Rebuttal:
5. DID PRE-FLOOD HUMANS MATE WITH ANIMALS AND GIVE BIRTH TO
NEW SUB-HUMAN SPECIES AND RACES? EGW: YES "But if there was one sin above
another which called for the destruction of the race by the flood, it was the
base crime of amalgamation of man and beast which defaced the image of God, and
caused confusion everywhere" (Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, p. 64). EGW: YES
"Every species of animal which God had created were preserved in the
ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of
amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood there has been
amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of
species of animals, and in certain races of men" (Spiritual Gifts, vol.
3, p. 75). BIBLE: NO "And God said, 'Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move long the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind.' And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good" (Genesis 1:24, 25). NOTE: Five times in these two verses God states that animals can only reproduce according "to their own kinds." Horses cannot mate with birds and produce offspring -- neither can humans mate with monkeys and produce offspring. Even SDA scientists and the Ellen White Estate admit EGW was simply wrong. Apologist: There
have been years of speculation in the Adventist church as to exactly what Ellen
White meant by the above two statements (these are the only statements that
address this issue in all of her writings). Many have concluded that the
phrase "amalgamation of man and beast" (a problem occurring in each
group) should not be confused to mean "amalgamation of man with
beast" (humans and animals mating). Here is a typical statement revealing Ellen
White's views on the different races of human beings: "No distinction on account of nationality,
race, or caste, is recognized by God. He is the Maker of all mankind. All men
are of one family by creation, and all are one through redemption."--Christ's
Object Lessons, p. 386 For a detailed essay on this issue, please follow
the link below. D&D declare in their conclusion that "the
Ellen White Estate admits EGW was simply wrong." This is an
untrue statement. Reply to Rebuttal: 1.
Over the years, officials of the
White Estate, as well as Seventh-day
Adventist scholars, theologians and scientists, have stated both publicly and
privately that Ellen White’s views on amalgamation were wrong.
Many others, apparently fearful of coming out against EGW, dance around
the subject but refuse to directly affirm her statements on amalgamation.
A quick check of biology departments in SDA colleges and Universities
will give the current thinking. 2. One of the first SDA biologists to research whether EGW meant amalgamation of man with animal or simply man with man, was Dr. Harold Clark. "Clark called attention to his work with Ellen White's son, W. C. White and D. E. Robinson, her secretary. Neither of these men ever doubted that Ellen White meant the crossing of man and beast by the phrase "amalgamation of man and beast." Spectrum June 12, 1982, p.11. The current “speculation” among supporters of EGW is simply a ruse to circumvent what EGW actually said, and is only necessary because they understand the biological impossibility of what she wrote. 3.
The Seventh-day Adventist Geoscience Institute Senior Scientist also
believes in Amalgamation of man with beast. Click on: http://www.truthorfables.com/Amalgamation.htm
4.
How can animals deface the image of God by amalgamation, as they are not
created in his image? 6. DID GOD OR AN ANGEL SHUT THE DOOR OF NOAH'S ARK? EGW:
ANGEL "An angel is seen by the scoffing multitude descending from heaven
clothed with brightness like the lightning. He closes that massive outer door,
and takes his course upward to heaven again" (Spiritual Gifts, vol.
3, p. 68, written in 1864). EGW: GOD
"... God had shut it, and God alone could open it" (Patriarchs
and Prophets, p. 98, written in 1890). BIBLE: GOD 'Then the Lord shut him in" (Genesis 7:16). NOTE: The Bible says the Lord shut Noah in, EGW disagreed in 1864 saying it was an angel who shut the door. Then twenty-six years later in 1890, she changed her mind and wrote that it really was God who shut the door. First she contradicted the Bible and then she contradicted herself. SDAs try to reconcile EGW with the Bible by saying, "Oh, God used an angel to shut the door." If so, then why doesn't the Bible tell us that? Why is it that none of the Bible prophets knew God "used an angel"? Why was this information only available to Christians through EGW? And why does her information contradict every one of the Bible writers? If the OT Bible record was wrong, then why did Jesus say the Bible is "truth" (John 17:17)? For EGW to be right, the Bible, Moses, Jesus and Ellen White herself have to be wrong! Apologist: Ellen
White interchanges the words "angel" and "God." See
answer to #4 above. (If we classified every time a prophet used the word
"angel" for God as a "contradiction", then the Bible itself
would be in trouble.) Reply to Rebuttal: 1. The apologists argument is that the Bible writers interchanged the words "angel" and "God" therefore EGW had the same right to alter the words of the Bible. This is not true, for angels are created beings while God is eternal. It is true Bible writers sometimes use the technical phrase: “the angel of the LORD” to refer to God, but they never call God an “angel.” In a similar way the technical term “the Son of God” refers to Jesus Christ, but the word “son” refers to any male human being. 2. The apologists go on to extend their argument by saying: “If we classified every time a prophet used the word ‘angel’ for God as a ‘contradiction,’ then the Bible itself would be in trouble.” First, the Bible writers don’t use the word ‘angel’ for God; therefore the only ones in trouble here are EGW’s apologists. Second, what we see here we see a standard argument used by EGW apologists: Ellen White is always right and the Bible is always wrong. Over and over again Seventh-day Adventists denigrate the Word of God in order to defend the lies of Ellen White. 3.
The
real question
before us is: Who closed the door on Noah's Ark?
Was it the Lord as the Bible tells us or was it an angel as claimed by
EGW and her apologists? We choose
to believe Scripture over Ellen White. 7. WAS THE TOWER OF BABEL BUILT BEFORE THE FLOOD? EGW: YES "This system was corrupted
before the flood by those who separated themselves from the faithful followers
of God, and engaged in the building of the tower of Babel" (Spiritual
Gifts, vol. 3, p. 301). BIBLE: NO "After the Flood ... they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth" (Genesis 9:28 and 11:4). NOTE: This was one of the first EGW contradictions that SDAs found and corrected. They claimed it was just a typographical error, forgetting that EGW claimed the "very word" she wrote came from God! "When writing these precious books, if I hesitated, the very word I wanted to express the idea was given to me" (Selected Messages, vol. 3, pp. 51,52). 1907. I am just as dependent upon the Spirit of the Lord in relating or writing the vision as in having the vision. Spiritual Gifts, vol. 2, p. 293. Apologist: One
need only to look in the table of contents in the book which contains the above
quote (Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 3) to see whether or not Ellen White knew
when the tower of Babel was built. Note the order of the following
chapters of that book: VI. Crime Before the Flood Ellen White writes in the chapter entitled
"Tower of Babel" these words: "Some of the descendants of
Noah soon began to apostatize.... They built them a city, and then conceived the
idea of building a large tower to reach into the clouds..." With this clear statement, along with the order of
the chapters, it seems quite apparent that Ellen White understood when the Tower
of Babel was built. So why the statement that seems to indicate the Tower
was built before the Flood? The statement should have read "This
system was corrupted before the flood, and by those who separated
themselves from the faithful followers of God, and engaged in the building of
the Tower of Babel." It was corrected to read this way in the very
next printing of the book. The typo was caught by the editors long
before any critic brought it up. In 1866 the editor of Review and
Herald magazine explained the typo and the needed correction to his
subscribers, thus clearing up the whole issue. Again, in light of all that
was written about the Flood and Tower in Spiritual Gifts, no reasonable
person could think that she, in one sentence, nullified the rest of the book.
The chapters speak for themselves. Reply to Rebuttal: 1. The apologists are repeating the standard SDA argument that this error was a typo. Actually, this was one of the first EGW contradictions that her publishers found and corrected. That work continues to go on under the authority of the White Estate. You might wonder why SDAs think they have a right to change the words that the “Lord’s Messenger” used. Here’s what Paul A. Gordon, head of the White Estate wrote in the Adventist Review, Nov. 19, 1992, pages 8-9: “Is it legitimate to change, abridge, or simplify Ellen White’s writings? The answer is yes. We can change, abridge, or simplify the words, but we do not have license to change the intended message. Here’s why: Seventh-day Adventists do not hold to verbal inspiration. That means we do not believe that God dictated the words for Ellen White to use. … In the years since Mrs. White’s death in 1915, more than 50 new compilations or editions of Ellen White’s books have been prepared by the E. G. White Estate. In every case – including editions that have been abridged, condensed, or simplified – the intended message has never been lost; on the wording has been changed.” Therefore, when you read EGW’s books you are reading what the White Estate has approved – making changes whenever they felt changes were warranted – just as they did with EGW’s Tower of Babel error. 2. Also, notice they justify their changes by saying “Seventh-day Adventists do not hold to verbal inspiration. That means we do not believe that God dictated the words for Ellen White to use.” Here we have the Ellen White Estate contradicting what Ellen White herself said: "When writing these precious books, if I hesitated, the very word I wanted to express the idea was given to me" (Selected Messages, vol. 3, p. 51, 52). Seventh-day Adventists have a real conundrum: not only does Ellen White contradict the Bible and contradict herself, but even the Ellen White Estate contradicts Ellen White! Doesn’t it make a lot more sense to accept the Bible account and forget about Ellen White and her errors, lies, contradictions, omissions and the desperate SDA attempts to correct their false prophet? 8. WAS THE TOWER OF
BABEL BUILT TO ESCAPE ANOTHER FLOOD? EGW:
YES "The
dwellers on the plain of Shinar disbelieved God's covenant that He
would not again bring a flood upon the earth.
Many of them denied the existence of God and
attributed the Flood to the operation of natural causes. ... One object before
them in the erection of the tower was to secure their own safety in case of
another deluge. By carrying the structure to a
much greater height than was reached by the waters of the Flood,
they thought to place themselves beyond all possibility of danger. And as they
would be able to ascend to the region of the clouds, they hoped to ascertain the
cause of the Flood" (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 119). BIBLE: NO "Then they said, 'Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth'" (Genesis 11:4). Apologist:
It is not a contradiction to give more information or details than the previous
account (that is one of the purposes of prophets). Ellen White in no way
denies or contradicts what the Bible says, she is just giving more information.
All subsequent prophets would be "contradicting" Moses if we judged
them this way. Reply to Rebuttal: 1. The apologists contend it is all right for EGW to give additions to the Bible. But they do not agree this is acceptable practice for the Catholics, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses. Notice Ellen White’s “additions” to God’s Word generally end up contradicting Scripture. Her additions require SDAs to put her writings on the same level as God’s Word (how else could one “add” to the Bible?), and they violate Revelation 22:18 – “I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.” By admitting EGW adds “more information or details” her apologists are admitting she deserves to receive the plagues. 2.
It is not the purpose of God’s prophets to
contradict what former Bible prophets have written.
Truth is not progressive; truth is eternally unchangeable.
Both Mormons and Seventh-day Adventists
teach the false doctrine that “new” truth
can explain away “old” truth and thus their false doctrines are accepted as
“new truth.” However, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Paul
proclaimed that every “new” truth had to be checked against the “old”
truth of the Bible. Any who taught
anything which departed from the Bible standard deserved to doubly cursed:
“Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to
pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel
other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!
As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to
you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!”
– Galatians 1:7-9 4. Was the Tower of Babel really built higher than the mountains, which the flood covered? It had to be made taller than the tallest mountain for EGW’s “new” truth to be valid! EGW: THE
SERPENT “The serpent plucked the
fruit of the forbidden tree and placed it in the hands of the half-reluctant
Eve.” (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 55). EGW:
EVE “Without a fear she (Eve)
plucked and ate.” (Patriarchs
and Prophets, p. 56). BIBLE: EVE “When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree
was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining
wisdom, she took some and ate it.” (Genesis 3:6). NOTE: Who did it? 10.
WERE THE ISRAELITES DESTROYED BY GLUTTONY? EGW: YES "God granted their desire, giving them flesh, and leaving them to
eat till their
gluttony produced a plague, from which many of them died." (Counsels on Diet and Foods, p.
148). Bible: Num. 11:4 through Num. 11:6 (NIV)
4The rabble with them began to crave other food,
and again the Israelites started wailing and said, "If only we had meat to eat!
5We remember the fish we ate in Egypt at no cost—also the cucumbers, melons,
leeks, onions and garlic. 6But now we have lost our appetite; we never see
anything but this manna!" NOTE: EGW says the Israelites died because their gluttony produced a plague. The Bible says God struck them with a "severe plague" because they "craved other food". Numbers 11:4, 31-35. SDAs try to justify EGW's error by appealing to Psalm 105:40 which says: "They asked, and he brought them quail and satisfied them with the bread of heaven." However, Psalm 105:40 refers to the first time God gave His people quail to eat at the same time He began giving them manna (Exodus 16:11-13). There's nothing in Exodus 16:11-13 or Psalm 105:40 about gluttony or people dying because they ate too much meat or manna. Anyone thinking EGW was referring to Exodus 16:11-13 has to admit she contradicted the Bible by saying people died from gluttony when there was no gluttony and no one died from eating quail! The fact is Ellen White was referring to the second time God sent quail (Numbers 11:13, 18-23, 31-34). God told them He would give them enough meat to eat for a month -- enough to eat until it "came out their nostrils!" The Bible says a wind from God blew quail into the camp until they were piled three feet deep all around the camp. And the Bible says the people went out and gathered quail all day, all night, and all another day. The Bible says after they gathered it, and spread it around the camp, the "anger of the Lord burned against the people, and he struck them with a severe plague "when the meat was still within their teeth." EGW plainly contradicted the Bible by claiming they died from gluttony when no gluttony occurred in either incident! Apologist: Do
these statements contradict each other? D&D claim that no one had
eaten or swallowed any food when God destroyed them, so their gluttony couldn't
have been what angered God. The meat was "still between their
teeth" for some of them. But do that many people (over a million) eat
in perfect unison? Isn't it reasonable to think that while some people
were taking their first bite thousands were already well into their second
helping? "Come now, and let us reason together" is God's
counsel for us (Isaiah 1:18). The Bible said that God struck them with a
plague "before it [the meat] could be consumed." Does this
really mean that not one of them had already eaten? Can you imagine
over one million people gathering quail and all waiting to take that first bite
at the same time? Unlikely. No, when it said it hadn't been consumed
yet, it meant that the meat had not all been eaten/consumed. They,
as a group, were still in the process of eating it when God struck them
down (it was "still between their teeth" in other words). As a
person starts on his fourth plate of food, he is a glutton before the food in
front of him is consumed, even as it is still in his mouth. The conclusion
that gluttony had not occurred is unrealistic. Reply to Rebuttal: 1. The apologists do not give one text to support EGW's claim that gluttony was the cause of the plague or their death. The apologists tell us they must have had more than one bite in an attempt to support EGW's gluttony claim. Not so. The Bible tells us the plague began with the meat between their teeth AND before it could be consumed or eaten. "There they were buried the people who craved other food." Numbers 11: 34. 2.
The reason God brought a plague was because they complained about the
diet of manna and wanted a diet like they had in Egypt. READ THE
CONTEXT CAREFULLY, THE PROBLEM WAS NOT
GLUTTONY. They wanted fish, cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions and garlic.
Numbers 11:4, 5. 3.
The people did not need to start eating
"in unison" as the apologist tells us for the plague to begin. The
plague began while the meat was between THE teeth of the complainers. We do
not know how long that it took for each person to die after the first bite or
how many plates of food they ate before the plague began. "There they
were buried the people who craved other food." Numbers 11: 34. 4.
Only EGW brings gluttony and meat into the
picture as the cause of the plague and the
apologists contradicts what the Bible tells us in
order to supports EGW's fantasies. Would the
SDAs accept this nonsense
if it had been written
by Joseph Smith? 11. DID GOD SEND RAVENS TO FEED ELIJAH? EGW: NO "There He honored Elijah by sending food to him morning
and evening by an angel of heaven" (Testimonies, vol. 3, p.
288 written in 1873). EGW: YES
"He who fed Elijah by the brook, making a raven His
messenger" (Testimonies, vol. 4, p. 253 written in 1876). BIBLE: YES "I have ordered the ravens to feed you. ... The ravens brought him bread and meat" (1 Kings 17:4, 6). NOTE: In 1873 EGW contradicted the Bible when she said Elijah was fed
by an angel. Then three years later in 1876 she changed her mind and agreed with
the Bible that it really was a raven. Then, a year after her death, her editors
tried to smooth things over by omitting any reference to either an angel or a
raven -- they changed EGW's words to say Elijah was just "miraculously
provided with food" (Prophets and Kings, p. 129 published in 1916). Apologist: D&D
conclude: In 1873 EGW contradicted the Bible when she said Elijah
was fed by an angel. Then three years later in 1876 she changed her mind and
agreed with the Bible that it really was a raven. Then, a year after her death,
her editors tried to smooth things over by omitting any reference to either an
angel or a raven -- they changed EGW's words to say Elijah was just
"miraculously provided with food" (Prophets and Kings, p. 129 written
in 1916). The allegation that Ellen White "changed her
mind" in 1876 is untrue. She had already stated in 1851—22 years
earlier—that God had sent ravens to feed Elijah (A Sketch of the Christian
Experience and Views of Ellen G. White p. 45, later to be included in Early
Writings, and found on page 56), so she knew all about the ravens when she
made the "angel" statement. The allegation that editors tried to smooth things
over by changing Ellen White's words after her death is also untrue for three
reasons. 1) Ellen White oversaw and approved any changes that were made,
and 2) Nothing would be "smoothed over" or gained by saying
"miraculously provided with food" after the previous statements were
in print. And finally 3) Even if editors had altered the
statement to read this way they were not trying to cover up any reference to
ravens, for in that same book (Prophets and Kings) on page 123 a
statement about the ravens still remains. This shows clearly that there
was no deception on anyone's part to "smooth things over." But why did Ellen White originally say
"raven" and later mention the "angel"? Ravens don't
naturally bring food to people, and they certainly wouldn't bring "bread
and meat" without a miracle. The angel probably had a part in this
miracle just as angels have been behind the scenes of most miracles. Reply to Rebuttal: 1.
The fact is that the Bible says ravens brought food to Elijah not an
angel. Ellen and the apologists just cannot get it right.
So they resort to non-Biblical assumptions
to justify their false prophet’s contradictions.
The fact she “knew all about the ravens” in 1851 makes us wonder why,
in 1873, she claimed it was an “angel”?
One simply has to conclude that Ellen White was not inspired by God and
couldn’t even keep her own stories straight!
2.
The apologist tells us, "The
allegation that editors tried to smooth things over by changing Ellen White's
words after her death is also untrue for three reasons. 1) Ellen White oversaw
and approved any changes that were made." This
requires EGW to oversee and approve the
changes in Prophets and Kings in 1916 -- which
was one year after her death (she died in 1915)! The
White Estate has made many changes to EGW’s books
after her death – see the documentation in our
response under contradiction #7. Was the Tower of Babel Built Before the Flood,
reply #1. 3.
Does
the Bible tell us that it was ravens or an angel who
brought food to Elijah? Is your faith in the Word of God as the source
of truth or is it EGW? 12. DID SAMSON DISOBEY GOD WHEN HE MARRIED A
PHILISTINE? EGW:
YES "A young
woman dwelling in the Philistine town of Timnath engaged Samson's affections,
and he determined to make her his wife. ... The parents at last yielded to his
wishes, and the marriage took place. ... The time when he must execute his
divine mission -- the time above all others when he should have been true to God
-- Samson connected himself with the enemies of Israel. ... He was placing
himself in a position where he could not fulfill the purpose to be accomplished
by his life. ... The wife, to obtain whom Samson had transgressed the command of
God, proved treacherous to her husband" (Patriarchs and Prophets, pp.
562,563). BIBLE: NO
Judg. 14:3 through Judg. 14:4 (NIV) But Samson said to his father, “Get
her for me. She’s the right one for me.” 4 (His parents did
not know that this was from the LORD, who was seeking an occasion to
confront the Philistines; for at that time they were ruling over Israel.) Apologist: No
Bible student can deny that Samson had indeed "transgressed the command of
God" (see above EGW quote) by seeking a wife among the Philistines.
God was quite clear in this respect (see Ex. 34:11-16; Deut. 7:1,4; Judges 3:
5-6). The Lord knew that by continual association with the Philistine's
(and their women in particular) Samson's life would fall far short of God's
original plan. Most would admit that although Samson is listed in
faith's hall of fame (Hebrews 11) his weaknesses caused him much unnecessary
hardship and misery during his life. Had Samson remained faithful to God
he would have never been captured by the Philistines and had his eyes put out.
Nevertheless, God turned even this pitiful situation into a victory through the
strong man's final act of pulling down the pillars and killing more in his death
than in his entire life. As with most of these allegations, when the
statement is taken in its context (with no omissions) and the entire chapter is
read, one can understand the point Ellen White was making. Left out among the chopped quote above are these
words : "He [Samson] did not ask whether he could better
glorify God when united with the object of his choice, or whether [and then
D&D pick up the quote again] he was placing himself in a position where he
could not fulfill the purpose to be accomplished by his life." The
omitted first part of this statement summarizes Samson's problem in seeking this
woman. Note how differently it reads in its context as opposed to how it
was rendered on the "contradiction" list. Reply to Rebuttal: 1.
God gave Israel a law forbidding them from uniting in marriage to those
outside of the Covenant People. Did Sampson disobey this law? Yes. 2. Did God want Sampson to marry this Philistine woman in spite of this law? Yes. The reason was to defeat the Philistines, which fulfilled Sampson's purpose in life. "The LORD, who was seeking an occasion to confront the Philistines; for at that time they were ruling over Israel.)" This is a similar concept to the priests being absolved of working on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:5) and David eating the showbread under an emergency situation (Matthew 12:3-4). 3.
Did
Sampson by marrying a Philistine place himself in a position where he could not
fulfill the purpose in his life as claimed by EGW? No. Sampson fulfilled the
purpose that God had for him which was to destroy the Philistines, the enemies
of Israel. The marriage was the will of God. Judges
14:4 (His parents did not know that this was from the LORD, who was seeking an
occasion to confront the Philistines; for at that time they were ruling over
Israel.) EGW
and the apologists are wrong again.
13. DID THE HIGH PRIEST CARRY THE BLOOD OF
SACRIFICED ANIMALS INTO THE HOLY PLACE EACH DAY? EGW: YES
"The most important part of the daily ministration was the service
performed in behalf of individuals. ... By his own hand the animal was then
slain, and the blood was carried by the priest into the holy place and sprinkled
before the veil, behind which was the ark containing the law that the sinner had
transgressed. By this ceremony the sin was, through the blood, transferred in
figure to the sanctuary" (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 354). BIBLE: NO Apart from the annual Day of Atonement, the priest only sprinkled blood "before the veil" in the Holy Place on two occasions: (1) when a priest sinned (Leviticus 4:3-12); (2) when the whole Israelite community sinned (Leviticus 4:13-21). Blood was never taken into the Holy Place on a daily basis when a leader sinned (Leviticus 4:22-26), nor when an individual sinned (Leviticus 4:27-35). Note: Thus EGW contradicted the Bible by saying the sins of the individual were "transferred in figure to the (Holy Place of the) sanctuary" "through the blood" sacrificed on a daily basis. Apologist: In
regard to what happened to the blood after a sacrifice, there were (as D&D
pointed out) four different situations. 1)A priest, 2) a
leader, 3) a citizen, and 4) the congregation in general. Two of these
four required the blood to be sprinkled before the veil, and two required the
meat to be eaten so that through the priest's body, the sins would be
transferred in figure into the sanctuary. Where the confusion lies in Ellen White's
statement is when she says "the most important part of the daily
ministration was the service performed in behalf of individuals."
D&D imply that she means an individual citizen as opposed to
the congregation, the leaders, or the priests. But if one reads the entire
chapter (or at least the preceding 2 pages) it becomes clear that she means the
sacrifice for "individuals" (whether they be leaders or priests or
common citizens) as opposed to the ongoing morning and evening sacrifice, the
incense burning, and what was done with the shewbread. These were
sacrifices and ceremonies that were performed morning and evening, and were
different than when a priest, leader, common citizen or the congregation
committed an additional sin on their own. We know Ellen White was not confused about this by
a vital statement that D&D left out. It is the very next sentence
after they end the quote. It is unfortunate and confusing to readers that
this statement was left out. The statement, for all to read, is "In
some cases the blood was NOT taken into the holy place; but the flesh was then
to be eaten by the priest, as Moses directed the sons of Aaron, saying 'God hath
given it to you to bear the iniquity of the congregation.' Leviticus 10:17.
Both ceremonies alike symbolized the transfer of the sin from the penitent to
the sanctuary." (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 354,355). How much more clearly could she have stated it?
Ellen White chose to play up on the method that was used for one half of the
four situations, because it most clearly points to Jesus' blood. But she
did not leave out the fact that this was not done on all of them. This
clear statement, coupled with a reading of the entire chapter, shows that Ellen
White by no means contradicted the Bible. Keep in mind that if she knew
that in some cases the blood was not to be sprinkled before the veil, then she
knew when it was not to be sprinkled before the veil. This is in
perfect harmony with the Bible. Reply to Rebuttal:
2.
Notice the asterisk the
publishers inserted after the word “place”
in the above quote – it points us to Appendix note 6, p. 761
of Patriarchs and Prophets. There we find the following:
"When however, the offering was for a ruler
or for one of the people, the blood was not taken into
the holy place, but the flesh was to be eaten by the priest, as the Lord
directed Moses; "The priest that offereth it for sin shall eat it; in a
holy place shall it be eaten, in the court of the tent of meetings."
Leviticus 6:26, R. V. See also Leviticus 4:22-35.
The publishers are in agreement with us as they say, "When however,
the offering was for a ruler or for one of the people, the blood was not taken
into the holy place." 3. Blood was never taken into the Holy Place on a daily basis when a leader sinned (Leviticus 4:22-26), nor when an individual sinned (Leviticus 4:27-35). The blood was placed on the horns of the alter of burnt offerings. Leviticus 4:30. 4. EGW and her apologists are again contradicting the Bible – something even her publishers knew and tried to smooth over by their note in the appendix. 14. DID CHRIST RESEMBLE OTHER CHILDREN? EGW: Yes 1896 "He was to be like those
who belonged to the human family and the Jewish race. His features were to be
like those of other human beings, and he was not to have such beauty of person
as to make people point him out as different from others" (Christ Our
Saviour, p. 9, Edition 1896). EGW: No 1898 "No one, looking upon the
childlike countenance, shining with animation, could say that Christ was just
like other children" (Questions on Doctrine, p. 649, 1957). Bible: Yes "He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him." (Isaiah 53:2 NIV) Apologist: In
the first quote Ellen White is talking about Christ's facial features (just as
Isaiah 53:2 is). In the second quote she is stating the obvious: that His
ordinary face "shining with animation" from the love that poured
freely to all around Him, was unlike the other kids. While they were most
likely complaining about their chores or arguing or doing all of the other
things we all did as children, Christ stood out in that He was constantly the
picture of heavenly love. His facial features were not extraordinarily
handsome yet His countenance was always kind and "shining with
animation." Reply to Rebuttal: 1.
EGW tells us that Christ did
not resemble other children as his countenance was "shining with
animation." The Bible does not tell us this, so
we have her adding to Scripture.
The Hebrew word is ta’or (Strongs
#H8389) which means “outline, figure, appearance.”
It is used of a drawing or sketch and refers to the entire image or form
of a person – not just the “glow” on one’s face.
So the apologists are required to read this text through Ellen White’s
eyeglasses in order to arrive at their conclusion. 2.
The apologist defends EGW by saying she was comparing Jesus with children
who were
misbehaving or grumpy. EGW did not say this it was her
apologists. EGW was comparing the countenance of a normal happy child with that
of other children when she said, "No one, looking upon the childlike
countenance, shining with animation, could say that Christ was just
like other children." I have seen many
small children, which have shown a countenance "shining with
animation" they were very active and energetic. Thus, Jesus was in this
regard just like other children. 3.
The Bible tells us, "nothing in his appearance that we should desire
him." (Isaiah 53:2 NIV) If as EGW
claims, Jesus had a countenance, "shinning
with animation" then
his appearance would be such that people would
be attracted to Him even as a child for He would
be different from all other children! 4.
Once again EGW
and her apologists contradict the Bible. 15. WAS THE MAN JESUS CHRIST ALSO TRULY GOD? EGW: NO "The man Christ Jesus was not the
Lord God Almighty" (Letter 32, 1899, quoted in the Seventh-day
Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1129). BIBLE : YES "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace" (Isaiah 9:6). BIBLE: YES "Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen. 'I am the Alpha and the Omega,' says the Lord God, 'who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty" (Revelation 1:7-8). BIBLE: YES "Therefore God exalted him (Jesus) to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name" (Philippians2: 9). Apologist: Both
Ellen White and Seventh-day Adventists teach that Jesus was fully God even
though He became a real man. We disagree with certain denominations that
claim that Jesus was a "lesser God" created by the Father. We
maintain that He was one with the Father from eternal ages past and Ellen White
continually expressed this view. Now let's look at the quote above in its
context: "Christ left His position in the heavenly
courts, and came to this earth to live the life of human beings. This sacrifice
He made in order to show that Satan's charge against God is false--that it is
possible for man to obey the laws of God's kingdom. Equal with the Father,
honored and adored by the angels, in our behalf Christ humbled Himself, and came
to this earth to live a life of lowliness and poverty--to be a man of sorrows
and acquainted with grief. Yet the stamp of divinity was upon His
humanity. He came as a divine Teacher, to uplift human beings, to increase their
physical, mental, and spiritual efficiency. There is no one who can
explain the mystery of the incarnation of Christ. Yet we know that He came to
this earth and lived as a man among men. The man Christ Jesus was not the
Lord God Almighty, yet Christ and the Father are one. The Deity did
not sink under the agonizing torture of Calvary, yet it is nonetheless true that
"God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever
believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Notice in its context that Ellen White made it
quite clear that Jesus was totally equal with the Father when He came to the
earth. So what did she mean then that Jesus wasn't "Lord God
Almighty"? The key word here is "Almighty" (not
whether or not Jesus was "truly God" as the heading of this allegation
suggests). Before Jesus became a human, He had: 1) Omnipotence When He came to the earth He laid aside: 1) Omnipotence (He said "I can of mine
own self do nothing" [He needed the Father] John 5:30.) Jesus didn't count equality with the Father a
thing to be grasped, but for you and I He became a human and was obedient even
to the death of the Cross (see Philippians 2:6-8). Reply to Rebuttal: 1.
This is another
case where EGW got it right in one place
and got it wrong in another.
The apologists tell us, "Both Ellen White and Seventh-day Adventists teach
that Jesus was fully God even though He became a real man." But
the truth is, EGW did not regard Christ as
fully human and fully divine.
She held to the heretical Arian
belief as to Christ’s nature – just as did James
White, Uriah Smith and many other early Adventists.
By
making this distinction, EGW makes Jesus a lesser “god” – a “mighty”
god – but not “Almighty” God. The
Jehovah’s Witnesses make this same distinction. 2.
How
can this be true when Ellen says that Christ was not the "Lord God
Almighty?" For whatever reason Ellen White made this statement, it is not
Biblical. And if Jesus was just a
“man,” while on earth, then when did He become “Lord God Almighty?”
Jesus is the Lord God
Almighty 16. WHILE TEMPTING JESUS, DID SATAN CLAIM TO BE
THE ANGEL WHO HAD SAVED ISAAC FROM CERTAIN DEATH? EGW: YES "As soon as the long fast of Christ
commenced in the wilderness, Satan was at hand with his temptations. He ...
tried to make Christ believe that God did not require Him to pass through
self-denial and the sufferings He anticipated. ... He (Satan) also stated he was
the angel that stayed the hand of Abraham as the knife was raised to slay
Isaac"(Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 273). You may read the Bible from cover to cover and you will not find any evidence to validate this supposed conversation between Christ and Satan. Apologist: Here
D&D don't elaborate very long and offer no texts because there is no
contradiction here. This is merely more detailed information. As
with so many of these, when such details are given, the information is
immediately classified as a contradiction. Even atheists who try to tear
the Bible apart don't fault the Scriptures in this manner. For example: In Jude verse 9 we read: "Yet Michael the
archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses,
durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke
thee." Now imagine the argument "You may read the Old
Testament from Genesis to Malachi and you will not find any evidence to validate
this supposed conversation between Michael and Satan."
Jude in no way contradicts the Old Testament, yet this contention over
the body of Moses is never even mentioned in the Bible previous to this text.
Jude also speaks of Enoch prophesying about the Lord coming "with ten
thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon all..." [verses 14-16].
We have no record of Enoch saying any such thing in the writings of Moses, yet
we believe Jude. Reply to Rebuttal:
17. WHO CHOSE JUDAS TO BE ONE OF JESUS' TWELVE DISCIPLES? EGW: CHRIST CHOSE JUDAS "When Judas was chosen by our Lord, his case was not hopeless" (Testimonies, vol. 4, p. 41). EGW: DISCIPLES CHOSE JUDAS "The disciples were anxious that Judas should become one of their number. ... They commended him to Jesus" (Desire of Ages, p. 294). EGW: JUDAS CHOSE HIMSELF "While Jesus was preparing the disciples for their ordination, one who had not been summoned urged his presence among them. It was Judas Iscariot, a man who professed to be a follower of Christ. He now came forward soliciting a place in this inner circle of disciples. ... He hoped to experience this through connecting himself with Jesus" (Desire of Ages, pp. 293, 717). BIBLE: JESUS CHOSE JUDAS "When morning came, he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them ... Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor. ... Then Jesus replied, 'Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? ... You did not chose me, but I chose you" (Luke 6:13-16; John 6:70; 15:16). Apologist: Ellen
White's quotes simply say: The other disciples, when they heard his plea,
"commended him" (not "chose") to Jesus, then Jesus chose him
to actually become one, though knowing where it would lead. Reply to Rebuttal: 1. The question is, who chose Judas as well as the rest of the disciples? The Bible tells is that it |