Letters
from visitors to Progressive Seventh-day Adventist Web site.
I read part of the article on the Scapegoat
that some people say is Christ. How can the Scapegoat be Christ, when Christ
was the Lamb that was slain? It seems so obvious that the scapegoat was
Barabbas, the one who was set free instead of Christ. I don't see how anyone
can interpret this any differently. Although I don't have a lot of training in
Scripture interpretation this is a simple answer that should be satisfactory.
Just thought I'd make a comment.
In Christ, D.J.
Hello D:
That is an interesting theory. How
do you suggest those in the Old Testament times interpreted the scapegoat. The
focus of the ceremonies have all to do with God's dealing with mankind, thus
the ceremony deals with sins removal from the people and the Israelite camp. In
the New Testament we see that Christ is the lamb as well as the High Priest and
the one who takes away our sins. Barrabas does not really seem to fit into the
significance of the Day of Atonement.
------------------------------
Hi
I was raised in the sda church. Of corse, I
was 'backslidden' after my fathers' death. A few years after I married a United
Pentacostal. I started having the desire to have a relationship with the Lord
again. I soon started to question that this was not the right way. It only took
a few years before the marriage went 'sour' he had not been truthful and was
not interested in a christian life, even though his father was a UPC pastor. I
of coarse was still very interesting in "Living the Life" but was
begin to realize that there were errors in the UPC belief. After my unfortunate
divorce , I started really consetrating on the Bible and comparing different
beliefs. Then I met a 'wonderful man who was searching for the 'truth' too. He
was raised around Judism and believed in the Sabbath. We married this last
summer. We have attended three Sda churchs around the area. Now the subject of
EGW came into question in our studies. I believe my father was a believer in
her. I question this belief that most Sda have. We have been looking in to
Massonic Judism. I pray everyday that God will guide me in the right path.
Last week, out of respect my for my
ex-inlaws, I attend their church(upc), as I do from time to time. When they had
their pray time, I bowed down and prayed also. I prayed " God I'm look for
your truth , I believe that this is not the truth, because there should not be
any confustion. Let me know if I 'm on the right path , if the sabbath should
still be honored ...." I believe I got my 'sign' that day. I went to the
ex-inlaws for lunch (so they could spend time with their grandchildren) I was
looking through all their religous magizines they get in the mail. I took some
home. When I opened them up the three I grabbed were what I believe were
Adventist magizine tracts. One was about the Sabbath. This has not been the
only time things like this has happened to me this year. A couple monthes ago
my husband and I are driving on a trip and discussing doctorine we pray for
guidance,we then procede to pull into a rest stop. The only parking stop available
we start to pull in we both glance at the license plate of the car in front of
us. It said "IM A SDA" There have been others. Why do you think that
we keep getting directed toward the Adventist church. I don't know if there are
any other Adventism options or churchs I could attend? Please pray for me. I
hope to hear from you.
THANK YOU H
Hello H:
I think you answered your question
..(Why do you think that we keep getting directed toward the Adventist church.
I don't know if there are any other Adventism options or churchs I could
attend? ) with your first line. You were raised an SDA...your were
indoctrinated that it was the truth and now whenever you see reference to it
you interprete it as a call to come back home. I don't know if you are seeing
God's directions or seeing an easy way out of searching for truth. I think you
are wise to leave the UPC though I have not investigated that church myself, I
respect the opinions people like Walter Martin and Hank Hanagraaf of Christian
Research International www.equip.org I think the Messianic Judiasm may be a good place to look, though
they are not around in much of the country. There are none in my area so I
can't tell you much about them. I have communicated on SDANET with one man in
I hope that I have helped you,
though I doubt I have. But remember you are not alone in this, your
relationship with Christ is the important thing and He will see you through
even if it may not be in the comfort we may have wanted. And remember the
battle cry of the Reformation "The plain things are the Main Things",
keep that in mind and things will be easier to understand.
---------------------------------
Ron
In order for me to agree with your
postulation that Christ is more Biblically appropriate to view as the scapegoat
for the Day of Atonement I would have seriously reconsider my belief that EGW
was a prophet. Patriarchs and Prophets seems to clearly indicate that he scaprgoat
is a type for Satan. Great Controversy says plainly "the scapegoat
typified Satan" (page 422)
How can this be reconciled with your idea?
You also seem to want to tear down the day for a year in prophecy idea and yet
offer no other explanation than what has always been used to try to disprove
this theory. At least come up with something fresh. If you read Revelation 9
and accept the Uriah Smith writings that this refers to the rise of the Muslim
religion the day for year allowed the prediction of the end of the
If the early Adventists were wrong in their
understanding of prophecy why would anyone want to be an SDA - progressive or
reformed or any at all? I'd go be a Catholic where they have the fanciest
churches and all the art treasures! But I can't because they mix in man's
theories and traditions and call them God's. I want to be a part of the people
who fear God, keep His commandments, have the faith of Jesus and the Spirit of
Prophecy don't you?
K (K also wrote the following)
Hi, Ron
You did not answer my question. Please don't
just forward a bunch of stuff from someone else - let's you and me talk about
this, OK? If the Adventist view of prophecy and history is wrong then why even
be a Seventh-day Adventist? Should I go and study with the Pentecostals? They
have a pretty convincing argument about the rapture, the nation of
If Revelation 9 isn't what SDA's believe,
what does it mean? If you can't come up with a better answer than to simply
tell me that it isn't what SDA's teach then tell me what you think it means.
Don't just tear down SDA teachings without offering your explanation of what it
does mean. Christianity to me is more than doctrines. I believe that I need to
follow the example of Jesus in every part of my life. I need to have faith that
what I know about God is experiential and what the Bible says is trustworthy.
If my doctrine prevents me from seeing Jesus
and the plan of salvation then I need to discard the doctrine, wherever I
learned it. The Jews were arguably the most favored and religious and
enlightened nation on earth at the time God sent His Son in just the manner He
had told them. Yet they rejected Him because He didn't fit their idea of what
He came to do. I don't want my understanding of prophecy to allow me to reject
Him. I also believe that I am responsible for what I teach others to believe. I
study and pray for right thoughts and right doings. The writings of EGW have
been a tremendous source of strength in my return to spiritual things. If she
was and is wrong then all she wrote is suspect and my whole Christian
experience is now suspect too, as I have followed her advise in many areas of
my life. So answer the question, If Adventist teachings on prophecy have been
wrong all along why are any of us SDA's and what should we be teaching about
the 2300 days, Lucifer, day for a year, the scapegoat, etc.?
I know you can do better than what you sent
yesterday.
K
(note the answer to K’s first
letter appears at the end of this letter’s page as it is fairly long.)
> You did not answer my
question. Please don't just forward a bunch of stuff from someone else - let's
you and me talk about this, OK?
Sorry I thought you might like to
know a little history about the Ottomen Empire since you used their supposed
fall to back up the year for a day doctrine. I had already dealt with it with
others so I copied it for you.
> If the Adventist view of
prophecy and history is wrong then why even be a Seventh-day Adventist? Should
I go and study with the >Pentecostals? They have a pretty convincing
argument about the rapture, the nation of
If life was this simple wouldn't it
be nice, a person would be either 100% right or 100% wrong. But of course life
is not that way at all, it is not that way for individuals or for organized
religions. The SDA church itself has changed a lot from their day. Life is a
growing process, the same is true for churches too. If they do not grow in
understanding they will become stagnant and self satisfied. Those of us
interesting in pursueing truth are willing to examine information and keep what
is good and discard what is not good. Should any organized religion be any
different?
> If Revelation 9 isn't what
SDA's believe, what does it mean? If you can't come up with a better answer
than to simply tell me that it isn't >what SDA's teach then tell me what you
think it means. Don't just tear down SDA teachings without offering your
explanation of what >it does mean.
There are lots of commentary out
there about Rev. 9, What an absurd argument We will know when it happens, it is
not meant for us to predict what will occur. But when the prophecy does not
match the history which it is claimed to be the fulfillment, it is not hard to
point out that the interpretation was wrong.
> Christianity to me is
more than doctrines. I believe that I need to follow the example of Jesus in
every part of my life. I need to have >faith that what I know about God is
experiential and what the Bible says is trustworthy. If my doctrine prevents me
from seeing Jesus >and the plan of salvation then I need to discard the
doctrine, wherever I learned it.
I agree
> The Jews were arguably the
most favored and religious and enlightened nation on earth at the time God sent
His Son in just the >manner He had told them. Yet they rejected Him because
He didn't fit their idea of what He came to do. I don't want my understanding
>of prophecy to allow me to reject Him.
Why would any prophecy cause a
person to reject Christ? Answer: improper emphasis on projected events and
doubt caused by the prophecy not coming to pass as the interpreters wanted it
to. Your desire to know what will happen and speculate upon what will happen is
more dangerous than those of who are willing to wait.
> I also believe that I am
responsible for what I teach others to believe. I study and pray for right
thoughts and right doings. The >writings of EGW have been a tremendous
source of strength in my return to spiritual things. If she was and is wrong
then all she wrote >is suspect and my whole Christian experience is now
suspect too, as I have followed her advise in many areas of my life.
The Bible should be your only
standard, test everything by it. EGW said a lot of good things and some not so
good things, this is true of Martin Luther also. Of course it is far easier to
allow someone to just tell you what to do and believe, but it is never a wise
choice.
> So answer the question, If
Adventist teachings on prophecy have been wrong all along why are any of us
SDA's and what should we >be teaching about the 2300 days, Lucifer, day for
a year, the scapegoat, etc.?
Churches grow out of
dissatisfaction with the churches from which they sprang. No church has all the
truth, and no church is competely in error. The choice of a church is not
simply what do they teach about prophecy, there are many factors A person
should go where they feel they can grow in the knowledge of God. That may not
be as gradiose sounding as saying my church is the remnant church or my church
follows Apostolic succession, or my church was founded by a prophet restoring
the truth. But then big claims to not equal fact.
----------------------------------------
I thought to write after reading your lists
of words in the lists on the kjv,,it seems that the gentelman who camed up with
this list is biased,,and is seeking to misslead those who would be interested
in this issue``there is a sda author who has written on it benjamin
wilkerson,,,he is a scholar,,,, and also several other authors to give a
balanced view,,the one you quote Mr White does not give an accurate account of
the issue ,,you should check ,,David otis Fuller,Edward Hills,,gail Riplinger,
the dean burgon society,the trinitarian bible society``there are those that
give truth and cover all the area's of debate ,,then there are thosed that try
to give one side and act as though they are covering the whole issue ,,,,this
is a day and age of apostacy and we must be true to scripture not the
criticisms of scholars against the reformation text ,,ALL those new bibles are
translated from catholic manuscripts and inferior ,corrupt manuscripts,,please
pray ands seek the truth,,look at the complete issue,,,thanks T.H.
The list is hardly biased. you can
look the words up all texts are given. The list comes for "The
Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible" . It takes no position on the King
James Only debate, the list should be helpful for anyone who ever uses the KJV
Have you read James White's book,
if not you should. Anyone who uses Gail Riplinger as a source has major
problems. But that is not the subject of my website, White's book is good and
he is by no means a Catholic sympathizers as you could tell if you read his
other books.
> ALL those new bibles are
translated from catholic manuscripts and inferior ,corrupt manuscripts,,please
pray ands seek the truth,,look >at the complete issue
Complete nonsense.
---------------------------------------------
Dear Sir:
Why don't you take all the scriptures
regarding who Jesus is/was/will be and then come to a more proper,biblical
conclusion (i.e., He was fully God and fully man). For instance the scripture
that says: " For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with
the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are,
yet without sin." Heb.4:15.....Or read especially Hebrews 2:14-18 and let
God's Word break through. There is much more scripture regarding an issue or
doctrine that you have hardly studied into. This is merely a small, very clear
sampling of what the Scriptures say regarding Jesus that you have not looked
into closely enough or you wouldn't make the statements that you do on your Web
Site.It would really beg the question for scripture to declare that
Jesus.." was tempted in all points like as we are..." but couldn't
possibly sin. As God, no because God cannot be tempted (James 1:12-15); as a
man, yes because man can be tempted (James 1:12-15). I too can make the Bible
say whatever I want it to if I take only a partial, out of context approach to
its study. My Brother, you are not rightly dividing the Word of God.....Be
careful, very careful how you handle the Word of God and presume to be
instructing others. Faithfully yours, with no disrespect or offense intended.
G
The problem comes from your
understanding of tempt. God and Christ on earth are not tempted as we are, not
only would they never give into a temptation, they would not be induced to
temptation as man is. If you had bothered to continue in James you would see
that man is tempted by his evil desires. James 1:13-15 Let no man say when he
is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither
tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own
lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and
sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. (KJV)
If by your reasoning above, tempted
means the capability of sin then God Himself sets forth the idea that He should
not be tempted and was tempted. Deut 6:16 Ye shall not tempt the LORD your God,
as ye tempted him in Massah. (KJV)
Heb 4:15 For we do not have a high
priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has
been tempted in every way, just as we are-- yet was without sin. (NIV)
What this refers to is that Christ
was challanged and proved that he was without sin. In other words he was in the
same circumstances as other human beings yet he never sinned. Strongs defines
it as follows 3985 peirazo (pi-rad'-zo); from 3984; to test (objectively), i.e.
endeavor, scrutinize, entice, discipline: KJV-- assay, examine, go about,
prove, tempt (-er), try.
One way you can test the above
theory is to consider if you really think that Christ was tempted to any of the
following, rape, mass murder, homosexuality, pediphillia, to be as you say
tempted in all ways that would be neccessary, even if you or I are never
tempted by any of the above, there are people on earth who are or have been.
>I too can make the Bible
say whatever I want it to if I take only a partial, out of context approach to
its study. My Brother, you are not > rightly dividing the Word of God.....Be
careful, very careful how you handle the Word of God and presume to be
instructing others.
As you aptly showed with your use
of James. Also consider this, If God and man existed in one body who do you
think would be in control, obviously God who is far more powerful than any
human being or human nature.
--------------------------------
More from K
I didn't mean to be so insistent. I wanted to
back our discussion away from the specifics of history and look at the basic
principles of truth and error in the teachings of SDA's and I think we agree in
principle. However, I have spent time studying with those of other persuasions
and they have a LOT of error (as I see it) mixed in and I have dealt with a lot
of SDA's who can only parrot what they have been taught. I don't want that. I
want an experiential relationship based on a knowledge of God. I realize that
is a big task ahead because I believe that God is the I AM He claims to be and
all that implies is so vast and amazing that my mind can hardly stretch to the
concept. But bit by bit, through the stories, poems, history and etc. in the
Bible a pattern is emerging. I have found that much has been added to my
understanding through reading EGW passages, too. I realize she was a human and
that inspiration is by thought and concept not by word. I do have a tendency to
panic if I think I will have to review what I have believed, but I know that
that reveiwing is the only way to be sure of what I believe. So thanks for
being patient with my earlier impatience. I still believe that what EGW wrote,
though it is not canon, is put here to help my understanding of God's word. And
I find it a difficult proposition to say that anything that is from her pen is
in error - how does a person decide which is the error and which is not? I
mean, I'm a black and white kind of guy even if that doesn't really work well
in this world. I know that only the Bible can be considered the error-free
source for my beliefs and that it is often a difficult book to understand. The
Sprirt of Truth is to guide us and if we reject that guidance we will be surely
left in darkness. God help us, as we are living in perilous times and to be
without a sure word of prophecy is to be adrift in the flood of lies the Devil
has unleashed. God says He won't do anything without revealing it to His
prophets. I believe He has done that and that as I believe his prophets I will
prosper. I can be patient and wait to see what is revealed from Rev 9 and many
other parts of the Bible prophecy, but there is a lot that rides on the day for
a year idea and if it is indeed not a bible supported theory what is then? Is
1844 all a fanciful theory dreamed up by fanatics? Why does it seem to work. I
need to use the Bible to guide my understanding of history, don't I? and not
use history to judge the Bible, right? Maybe you have some ideas you could
share so that it doesn't seem that all you want to do is tear down the
teachings of SDA's. Jesus himself offered the truth as he pointed out the
doctrinal errors of the Jews.
I've rambled too long for tonight
See Ya
K.
> I didn't mean to be so
insistent. I wanted to back our discussion away from the specifics of history
and look at the basic principles of >truth and error in the teachings of
SDA's and I think we agree in principle. However, I have spent time studying
with those of other >persuasions and they have a LOT of error (as I see it)
mixed in and I have dealt with a lot of SDA's who can only parrot what they
have >been taught.
This is why I posted the articles I
have written, to counter the errors which also exist within the SDA church. I
don't have all the answers I want either but for the articles on the web site I
think I have presented convincing arguments.
>I don't want that. I want an
experiential relationship based on a knowledge of God. I realize that is a big
task ahead because I believe >that God is the I AM He claims to be and all
that implies is so vast and amazing that my mind can hardly stretch to the
concept. But bit >by bit, through the stories, poems, history and etc. in
the Bible a pattern is emerging. I have found that much has been added to my
>understanding through reading EGW passages, too. I realize she was a human
and that inspiration is by thought and concept not by >word. I do have a
tendency to panic if I think I will have to review what I have believed, but I
know that that reveiwing is the only way >to be sure of what I believe. So
thanks for being patient with my earlier impatience.
Good, I know what a reviewing past
beliefs can do, and how hard it is to give up beliefs which you have been
taught are true. I was raised an SDA it can be a shock to discover that
something you once thought of as a basic belief deteriorates when looking to
find Biblical support for the belief.
> I still believe that what EGW
wrote, though it is not canon, is put here to help my understanding of God's
word. And I find it a difficult >proposition to say that anything that is
from her pen is in error - how does a person decide which is the error and
which is not? I mean, >I'm a black and white kind of guy even if that
doesn't really work well in this world. I know that only the Bible can be
considered the >error-free source for my beliefs and that it is often a
difficult book to understand. The Sprirt of Truth is to guide us and if we
reject that >guidance we will be surely left in darkness.
I am not sure what you mean by the
last sentance, if you are referring to the Holy Spirit then I would agree, if
you are referring to a certain prophet, then I would disagree.
> God help us, as we are living
in perilous times and to be without a sure word of prophecy is to be adrift in
the flood of lies the Devil >has unleashed. Of course we have the Bible so
the sure word of prophecy is present. God says He won't do anything without
revealing >it to His prophets. I believe He has done that and that as I
believe his prophets I will prosper.
Well I am not sure the verse in
Amos means to be used the way many SDA's use it however in the general sense
God has revealed adequate information in what we have gathered together as the
Bible to make it a standard to base our doctrines and philosphies on.
>I can be patient and wait to
see what is revealed from Rev 9 and many other parts of the Bible prophecy, but
there is a lot that rides on the day for a year idea and if it is indeed not a
bible supported theory what is then?
For a time it seemed to be the answer
as people looked around them and using current events they determined that the
event was a fulfilled prophecy. People still do that today, claiming the events
in the paper are evidence of fulfilled prophecy. Time has however proved their
interpretations to be wrong. Starting and ending dates can be manipulated to
arrive at these interpretations, that is why there were so many different ones.
(see Froom's book Prophetic faith of our fathers.)
>Is 1844 all a fanciful theory
dreamed up by fanatics? Why does it seem to work.
My answer is yes, it seems to work
because there is absolutely nothing on earth that can verify the claim. What
they had thought was going to happen did not happen at all, It is a good face
saving technique. You can find comparable instances within the teachings of the
Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, and I think in the former World Wide Church of God.
I have heard preachers on TV do the same thing, from Oral Roberts, Benny Hinn,
and people involved in the Toronto Blessing movement. The idea is so simple, if
what you say does not happen then move the fulfillment into the unseen world or
spiritualize it in some way.
> I need to use the Bible to
guide my understanding of history, don't I? and not use history to judge the
Bible, right?
No the Bible does not interpret
history, history is facts, if what the Bible says and what history say
correlate then that should give you reason to think that the Bible is correct.
If the history correlates with a prophecy that again should encourage your
belief in the authority of the Bible. History is also used to judge the Bible,
it is the archealogy and historical accuracy of the Bible which back up the
belief that it was indeed inspired by God.
>Maybe you have some ideas you
could share so that it doesn't seem that all you want to do is tear down the
teachings of SDA's. Jesus >himself offered the truth as he pointed out the
doctrinal errors of the Jews.
In most of the articles on my
website reasons are given why the SDA version is not correct. I do not just
tear them down, I explain what their problems are, the history involved and
Biblical evidence to support what I see as a better interpretation. I always
try to point people back to the Bible, and encourage their persuit of truth. If
that means I have to point in the opposite direction then so called modern
prophet, that is what I shall do.
Your main battle right now is what
to do about EGW. I can't help you with that. Though I must admit if the Bible
is the standard by which we judge our doctrines why does she so often enter
into the equation.
------------------------------------------------------
Just visited your site for the first time.
Found it somewhat interesting. I would make a suggestion on your page:
http://users.clarkston.com/rcorson/historicsda.htm
There are two major headings on this page:
1)... fundamentalist group of laymen within
the SDA...
2)... left the SDA church but who hold...
The distinction between these groups is not
clear. While it is clear that just after the large type for the second group,
you correctly identify the Shepherds Rod and Creation SDA. But, just below
that, you are back talking about the first group again. This is very odd, and
makes things not clear.
Example: the third article below
"Fundamentalists which have left the SDA church but who hold to many of
the teachings espoused by many of the Historical/Traditionalist SDA's" is
by Kevin Paulson. Kevin is a friend of mine, and has certainly not left the SDA
church. He is a member in good and regular standing at Loma Linda, and has
recently started a conservative magazine for young adults. He has shared with
me that he has received a letter from the new GC president that the magazine is
right on and wishes him the best of success for it. That does not sound at all
like a person who has "left the SDA church" I might add that Keven
was invited to our church a couple years ago to present a week end seminar on
avoiding fanaticism withing SDA, a very interesting set of meetings. The same
mistakes are made for Jeff Wehr, and Ron Spear. Neither has left the church. I
suggest you reorganize the page for clarity purposes.
Thanks, D.
Thank for taking the time to let me
know the page was unclear. I have rewriten the page to clear up any problems in
discerning who is who. Since the article by your friend was located at the hope
international site I assumed people would not confuse those with shepherd's rod
and Creation 7th day people. There is another group who specializes in 1888 but
I don't know what I did with mailing, if they have a web site you know about I
would like to know what it is. Let me know if you still think the web page is
confusing.
---------------------------------------
I think it very interesting, you have so much
vision on the scapegoat but you still cling to the SDA, term end of time. Would
you mind forwarding the Bible texts supporting the term end of time? The
scapegoat serves to remove sin from the sanctuary, not the people or the high
priest. The priest cleansed the sanctuary symbolically by the blood on his hands,
after it(sin) had accumulated for the year in the sanctuary, it was removed and
placed on the head of the scapegoat symbolizing removal of the record of sin
from memory. It, sin dies from memory as does the scapegoat. As does Satan and
sin when God is vindicated at the great white throne judgment. It is good to
hear someone say the investigative judgment concept is a farce.
Thanks for listening, E.
Not quite, the scapegoat had the
sins of the Israelites laid on its head Lev 16:20-22 "When Aaron has
finished making atonement for the Most Holy Place, the Tent of Meeting and the
altar, he shall bring forward the live goat. He is to lay both hands on the
head of the live goat and confess over it all the wickedness and rebellion of
the Israelites-- all their sins-- and put them on the goat's head. He shall
send the goat away into the desert in the care of a man appointed for the task.
The goat will carry on itself all their sins to a solitary place; and the man
shall release it in the desert. (NIV)
The idea that sin was symbolically
transferred into the sacntuary is lacking biblically. The above verse is the
only verse I know of which speaks about a transference of sin. Which makes it
very important in leading to the understanding of how Christ bears our sins. AS
for the use of the term "end of time" I used it twice in the article
in the way it is used within the SDA church. It is a phrase used 110 times by
Ellen White, no doubt explaining its popularity in the SDA church. In both
cases I use the phrase in describing the rather unusual SDA view of the
Scapegoat. I wrote:
But the evidence that Satan will
have sins transferred upon him at the end of time must be considered.
Unfortunately for those holding the scapegoat as Satan position no Biblical
support is available. (good thing you brought this up I forgot the ing on
holding I need to change that) and There is no need of it to be placed on Satan
at the end of time. To do this is to confuse the symbol used to teach a lesson
with what the lesson really is. And finally the Bible never says that sin is
transferred to Satan either at the Day of Atonement or at the end of this age.
Given the American usage about
running out of time, etc. I have no real problem with the term end of time. The
meaning maybe somewhat vague, but is it much different from the end of the age,
used in Matthew. I don't think many people use it in the more philosophical
sense of living without recognition of time. Since much like eternity, life
without time seems incomprehensible. It may be that God lives without the
constraints of time, but I think if we want to understand that we need a long
personal conversation with Him about that.
---------------------------------------
Reply to K mentioned above
> Ron
> In order for me to agree with
your postulation that Christ is more Biblically appropriate to view as the
scapegoat for the Day of >Atonement I would have seriously reconsider my
belief that EGW was a prophet. Patriarchs and Prophets seems to clearly indicate
>that the scaprgoat is a type for Satan. Great Controversy says plainly
"the scapegoat typified Satan" (page 422) How can this be
>reconciled with your idea?
It may be wise to rethink you
position on the scapegoat if the reason you object to my article is because EGW
says otherwise.
> You also seem to want to tear
down the day for a year in prophecy idea and yet offer no other explanation
than what has always been >used to try to disprove this theory. At least
come up with something fresh. If you read Revelation 9 and accept the Uriah
Smith >writings that this refers to the rise of the Muslim religion the day
for year allowed the prediction of the end of the Ottoman empire to the
>DAY. If the early Adventists were wrong in their understanding of prophecy why
would anyone want to be an SDA - progressive or >reformed or any at all? I'd
go be a Catholic where they have the fanciest churches and all the art
treasures! But I can't because they mix >in man's theories and traditions
and call them God's. I want to be a part of the people who fear God, keep His
commandments, have the >faith of Jesus and the Spirit of Prophecy don't you?
> K
Read the followin in regards to the
ottomens:
In regards to the Ottoman Empire
here is a copy of Information I sent to a Pastor friend of mine in response to
his comment highlighted here:
>I believe there actually was a
coincidence that need explaination. Litch said the Ottoman Empire would
collapse on August 11, 1840. On >that very day, a message was received by
that Empire accepting the protection of Western governments. Some would say
that the >Ottoman empire no longer had the influence it once had. I think it
is a coincidence that on the day that Litch predicted something >regarding
the Ottoman empire, something significant happened.
Where do you get the above about
August 11, 1840. That sounds like something an Adventist Pioneer would say, it
is not what the History reveals. There were other nations involved with the
treaty, so what, the Ottomans had had many such treaties in the past with
European nations. And in fact there were many previous alliances made with
England and France and other nations for the support of the Ottoman Empire.
That was buisness as usual as it is today for every nation. Don't forget that a
mere 40 some years prior Napolean was running around all over the European
area, as a result there were numorus treaties that came and went.
Over the weekend I looked in the
SDA commentary on Rev. 9. They conclude the additional notes section by saying
that SDA's hold to the position of Litch. In the light of what history tells us
I find this to be completely absurd. I'm afraid this is just another example of
SDA's complete lack of any knowledge of history.
As per our conversation last friday
I looked up the reference on the Ottoman empire you spoke of. We do not need to
worry about explaining away the coincidence because there is none, read what
follows.
GC.334.004 Great Controversy page
334
In the year 1840 another remarkable
fulfillment of prophecy excited widespread interest. Two years before, Josiah
Litch, one of the leading ministers preaching the second advent, published an
exposition of Revelation 9, predicting the fall of the Ottoman Empire.
According to his calculations, this power was to be overthrown "in A.D.
1840, sometime in the month of August;" and only a few days previous to
its accomplishment he wrote: "Allowing the first period, 150 years, to
have been exactly fulfilled before Deacozes ascended the throne by permission
of the Turks, and that the 391 years, fifteen days, commenced at the close of
the first period, it will end on the 11th of August, 1840, when the Ottoman
power in Constantinople may be expected to be broken. And this, I believe, will
be found to be the case."--Josiah Litch, in Signs of the Times, and
Expositor of Prophecy, Aug. 1, 1840.
At the very time specified, Turkey,
through her ambassadors, accepted the protection of the allied powers of
Europe, and thus placed herself under the control of Christian nations. The
event exactly fulfilled the prediction. When it became known, multitudes were
convinced of the correctness of the principles of prophetic interpretation
adopted by Miller and his associates, and a wonderful impetus was given to the
advent movement. Men of learning and position united with Miller, both in
preaching and in publishing his views, and from 1840 to 1844 the work rapidly
extended.
------
A quick look in the Encyclopedia
will show the error of this prediction and of those who felt it was fulfilled
in 1840. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica "the 36th and final
Ottoman emperor, Mehemd VI Vahideddin, was overthrown in 1922 and modern Turkey
was formed."
It further notes that the empire
was declining in the 17th century and accelerated in the 18th century.
" Under the Convention of London, which was signed on July 15, 1840, the
governorship of Egypt became hereditary in Mohammad Ali's (of Egypt) family
without undermining the sovereign rights of Turkey; Egyptian claims to Crete,
Syria, and the Holy Cities were abandoned. A year later, on July 13,1841, five
powers signed the protocol des detroits, by which the sultan was to close the
straits to warships of all the powers."
As appears to be a trend with early
Adventists and history did not see eye to eye. The Adventists seem to create
history to suit themselves, or more aptly misuse and distort history to back up
their broken theology and eschatology.
Here is some stuff from the
Collier's Encl.
During the 18th century Ottoman
power in the Mediterranean was largely lost. If the European states had not
been engaged almost continuously in wars, they could have driven the Ottomans
from Europe and taken over the Empire completely. In the 17th century the
Ottoman enemies had been Austria and Venice, in the 18th they were Austria and
Russia. The Treaty of Passarowitz in 1718 awarded more territory to Austria.
However, although defeated in wars in the 1730’s, the Ottomans, by the Treaty
of Belgrade in 1739, regained the city, mainly because of the weakness of the
Hapsburgs and the maneuvering of the French negotiators. For 35 years after
this treaty the Ottoman sultans enjoyed peace. The Capitulations. As a reward
for the fine work of the French in negotiating at Belgrade in 1739, a new
treaty between France and the Ottomans was concluded in 1740. Called the Treaty
of Capitulations, this document was long regarded as the basis upon which all
foreign states enjoyed special privileges within the Ottoman Empire. In truth,
such treaties date back at least to 1251 when the Mameluke sultans in Cairo
granted special recognition to St. Louis of France. Mehmed II, Bayazid II,
Selim I, and Suleiman I reconfirmed that treaty and entered into new ones with
Venice and other Italian city-states, Hungary, Austria, and most of the
European states—one of the most significant being the treaty of 1536 between
Suleiman and Francis I of France. The Treaty of 1740 allowed Frenchmen to
travel and trade in the Ottoman Empire under full protection of the sultan,
granted their goods freedom from all taxes except import and export duties,
recognized the French envoys and consuls as having juridicial authority and
rights over Frenchmen, and agreed that no Frenchman could be arrested by an
Ottoman officer if a French consular official were not present. The French
could freely possess, erect, and use churches of their own, and all Roman
Catholics within the Empire were to be as free as Frenchmen. Furthermore,
France could enroll under her flag Portuguese, Sicilians, and others who had no
ambassador at the Porte. (The Sublime Porte was the principal gateway to the
palace area, and through it representatives of foreign powers passed to visit
the sultan and other officials. Hence, the "Sublime Porte" was a name
given to the Ottoman government.) When the Ottoman Empire was powerful and
foreign states were weak, such treaties were regarded as very generous acts but
not dangerous to the state. But beginning with 1740, when foreign states obviously
were more powerful, the articles of these treaties were wedges and clubs with
which to undermine the Empire.
In the first years of the French
Revolution the Ottoman Empire was affected only by being left alone by the
European powers, busy with their own affairs. When Napoleon Bonaparte invaded
Egypt in 1798, Selim III could hardly ignore the attack. The Ottomans had
failed to subdue Egypt fully and had never integrated it into the Empire.
Mameluke organizations had persisted and had gained such great power by the
mid-18th century that the Ottoman governor lived in Cairo only on their
sufferance. Napoleon pretended that his attack on Egypt would subdue the
Mamelukes and enhance Selim III’s authority there; supposedly Selim was his
ally. Selim, nevertheless, declared war on France and sent his navy and an army
to defend the province. The British navy off Alexandria and the Levantine coast
saved the Ottomans, but this involvement brought the Ottoman Empire into the
wars and diplomacy of Europe.
Meanwhile, in Egypt, after
Napoleon’s departure, Mehemet (Muhammad or Mohammed) Ali from the city of
Kaválla in Macedonia, serving in the Ottoman contingent, rose to power and in
1806 became the Ottoman governor of Egypt, thereby opening a new chapter in the
history of that ancient land. Mahmud II (r. 1808-1839). In 1809 Turkey entered
into the famous Treaty of the Dardanelles that opened the country to British
commerce provided that Great Britain would recognize that the Straits would be
closed to warships when Turkey was at peace. Because the Ottoman Empire had
agreed to adhere to Napoleon’s Continental System, this treaty was considered a
breach of faith. Russia attacked on the Danube and took a series of towns in
Bulgaria and Wallachia. The Treaty of Bucharest in 1812 abandoned much
territory to the tsar who, in turn, withdrew his support of the rebels in
Serbia. In 1815, the Ottoman Empire was recognized by the Congress of Vienna as
one of the European Powers.
Almost as soon as the French
Revolution and Napoleon were removed from the scene, Mahmud II was confronted
with a nationalistic Greek revolution. The Greek War of Independence was a
bloody affair, and in many places it turned into a civil war. Mahmud II might
have been successful in ending the struggle, especially after he induced his
nominal vassal Mehemet Ali of Egypt to send an army and navy, but intervention
by England, France, and Russia crushed Mehemet Ali’s forces. With Russian
troops invading from the Caucasus and marching toward Istanbul, Mahmud signed the
Treaty of Adrianople in 1829, recognizing the independence of the Greek
kingdom. Within a few years Mehemet Ali’s forces under his son Ibrahim Pasha
had taken Syria and were dangerously near to the Bosporus in Asia Minor. Mahmud
was saved only by Russian marines landing on the Asian side of the Bosporus as
a warning to Mehemet Ali. Mahmud could not get rid of the Russians until he had
signed in 1833 the humiliating Treaty of Hunkar Iskelesi (Unkiar Skelessi),
which gave to the tsar the right to "protect" the sultan and to
obtain the opening and closing of the Straits to foreign warships upon his
request.
The last year of Mahmud’s life was
troubled again by war with his vassal in Egypt, Mehemet Ali. The latter
demanded the grant of hereditary title to Egypt, and when the wishwas not
granted war broke out. Mahmud’s army was crushed in North Syria, and his navy
deserted and went over to Mehemet Ali in Alexandria. However, Mahmud II was
spared this last humiliation, for he died before the news reached him. Abdul-Medjid
(r. 1839-1861). Mahmud’s eldest son and successor, Abdul-Medjid, was only 16
years old. Without an army or navy he was helpless before the superior forces
of Mehemet Ali. He was saved by the joint diplomacy and forces of Russia,
England, Austria, and Prussia. France at first favored the Egyptians but the
concerted action of the European powers solved the impasse by allowing Mehemet
Ali to have hereditary title to the governorship of Egypt under the nominal
suzerainty of the Ottoman sultan, an arrangement contained in the Treaty of
London of 1840 and confirmed by Abdul-Medjid in 1841. In that latter year the
London Convention of the powers agreed to the principle that no warship should
enter the Dardanelles or the Bosporus while the sultan was at peace, and each
power would rise to aid the sultan to defend his sovereignty over the Straits.
The Crimean War. The London Convention of 1841 had wiped out the special
advantages that Tsar Nicholas I of Russia had obtained from the secret
paragraph in the Treaty of Hunkar Iskelesi in 1833, and Russia was anxious to
regain her dominant influence with the Sultan. In a famous phrase, Nicholas
characterized the Empire as "the sick man of Europe." Evoking the
Treaty of Kuchuk Kainarji of 1774, Nicholas put pressure on the Balkans and
demanded special consideration and power for Russian monks at the holy places
in Jerusalem and Palestine. When Sultan Abdul-Medjid refused to appease the
Russians, the Crimean War resulted. It was more a European war than an Ottoman
one, for England, France, and Sardinia came to the rescue of Turkey. But
Istanbul served as a forward base, and the presence of European soldiers and
civilian officials left an indelible mark upon Turkish society. The Treaty of
Paris in 1856, terminating the war, left the Black Sea neutralized and
demilitarized. The European powers again recognized Turkish sovereignty over
the Straits and admitted the Ottoman Empire to the "concert of European
nations." Romania became an independent state.
Ottoman Bankruptcy. After the
Crimean War the Sultan started to borrow money from Western bankers at ruinous
rates of interest. With practically no foreign debt in 1854, the Ottoman
government raced toward bankruptcy, and by 1875 Sultan Abdul-Aziz owed nearly
one billion dollars in foreign currency to European bondholders.
World War I and the End of the
Ottoman Empire. Events since 1908 left the Young Turk government feeling
politically weak and isolated. It sought to remedy this by forming alliances
with the more important European nations, but only Germany proved receptive to
its advances. On Aug. 2, 1914, shortly after war had broken out in Europe,
Germany and Turkey signed a secret alliance, negotiated on the Turkish side by
the pro-German Enver Pasha, the leading member of the Young Turk triumvirate
and the minister of war. A few days later, two German warships, the Göben and
Breslau, sought shelter in Turkish waters off Istanbul. Turkey bought the
German ships, sailed them into the Black Sea in October, and shelled Russian
ports, thereby declaring war on the Allies. World War I ended the Ottoman
Empire, but gave birth to Turkey. The war brought hardships to the urban
population; conditions declined in the towns and food was scarce. In the winter
of 1914-1915 the army suffered huge losses when the Russians overran Armenia.
Fearing that the Armenians would collaborate with the Russians, the government
allowed the massacre by Turks of about one million Armenians in Anatolia, and
it deported thousands of other Armenians to Syria. Turkish rule ended in Arabia
in 1916 when Hussein ibn-Ali, the sultan’s regent in Mecca, led a revolt
assisted by the Allies. Under pressure of events, the Turkish government
finally disintegrated. However, the war also boosted Turkish self-confidence.
Aided by the Germans, the Turkish army had several important successes: it
defeated the Allied attack on the Dardanelles in 1915, captured a British army
in Iraq in 1916, and stemmed the Russian advance in the east. During the war,
too, the Capitulations were abolished, and tariffs were increased to protect
Turkish trade. Turkish people also took over businesses from dispossessed
minority groups, thus forming a nucleus of a new Turkish commercial and
industrial class. In 1918, when the Germans were called home to bolster the
Hindenburg Line, the Turkish military effort collapsed. An armistice was signed
by Ottoman and British representatives on Oct. 30, 1918, giving the Allies the
right to "occupy any strategic points" in the Ottoman Empire and control
of the Straits. The Turkish forces were to be demobilized.
Re: Ottoman Empire (was: Year-Day
Principle...)
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999 21:37:03
-0800 (>indicates comments from a previous letter)
Ron Corson here:
The question is how would you
explain a person with a good knowledge of history that in 1840 the Ottoman
Empire ended, thus substantiating the prophecy of Litch.
It seems to me that you are
subjectively choosing the 1840 date not because it is the end of the empire but
because it fits a prophecy you believe. So to show someone that you have chosen
the right date as the demise of the empire, what historian would you point to
and say, "see this is what history indicates as to the fall of the
empire."
Don S.wrote:
> I thank you for posting the
encyclopedia article, I find it excellent support for Litch's 'Ottoman Fall'
prediction. I can only assume that >your "quick look" was perhaps
"too quick"... Students of history realize that an empire seldom
'falls' in a single event, but in a series >of events that weaken the
empire. There is often, however, a pivotal event which seals it's doom. It may
stumble on for a period of time, > but it is plain that any hope of recovery
is over.
Yes this is true, but what reason
is there to site the 1840 treaty as the event which seals its doom. Especially
when the treaty served to help the empire.
> Your encyclopedia post reveals
such a pivot point for the Ottoman Empire: Mahmud’s eldest son and successor,
Abdul-Medjid, was >only 16 years old. Without an army or navy he was
helpless before the superior forces of Mehemet Ali. He was saved by the joint
>diplomacy and forces of Russia, England, Austria, and Prussia.
> Please notice the phrase
"he was helpless...". Without the intervention of other countries,
which the Treaty of 1840 accomplished, the >Ottoman empire would have CEASED
TO EXIST and would have been absorbed into the Egyptian state of Mehemet Ali.
That it >continued on to it's dissolution in 1922 was ONLY because of that
intervention. To consider it an 'empire' after 1840 is ludicrous. It was
>considered, at least by Russia, as "the Sick Man of Europe".
Can you find historians who would
back you assertion that it would have ceased to exit. Remember the articles
also noted that the empire could have been easily defeated in the 1700's also.
The empire has been sick for a long time. The period of the 1700's is viewed by
historians as a time of rapid decline for the empire. In fact according to the
Historians' History of the World vol. 24 1904 says the following:
"Such in substance was the
Treaty of Kutchuk-Kainardji; in which one of the ablest diplomatists of the age
saw not only the preparation of the destruction of the Mohammedan Empire of the
East, but also the source of evil and troubles without end for all the other
state of Europe. The German historian of the house of Osman considers that
treaty to have delivered up the Ottoman Empire to the mercy of Russia, and to
have marked the commencement of the dissolution of that empire, at least in
Europe." (page 419)
Now if a person were to choose a
date as to a major event that caused the fall of the Ottoman Empire a person
could point to the above quote and say here is some evidence why I have chosen
1774 as being the end of the Ottoman Empire. That of course would not mean that
1774 was the end of the empire, but at least a significant event would be
acknowledged by historians. I would expect those who hold to the 1840 treaty
could likewise show historian analysis to back up their assertion.
> The Ottoman EMPIRE was OVER in
everything but name from 1840 onward.
That is a bold assertion, the
problem is that it can not be backed up.
> As for the "many
treaties" the Ottoman Empire made with other nations, please notice that
they were not necessary for it's very >survival. You seem to think that all
treaties are the same, they are obviously not.
It's very survival? You obviously
don't know or understand, Do you know about the the treaties? Do you think they
were only minor ones. What of the 1792 Treaty of Jassy? Or the 1676 Treaty of
Zurawno? Or the Treaty of Paris 1856 World Book Encyclopedia has this to say:
"Muhammad Ali, pronounced moo HAM uhd AH lee (1769-1849), ruled Egypt from
1805 to 1848. He used French and other European advisers to help modernize
Egypt and to increase its wealth and power. Under him, the Egyptian government
and army came to be patterned after those of European countries. But he did not
encourage democracy. He kept power firmly in his own hands. Muhammad Ali was
born in Kavalla, then part of the Turkish-based Ottoman Empire and now in
Greece. In 1801, he helped evict French invaders from Egypt as an officer in
the Ottoman army. The Ottoman sultan (prince) named him governor of Egypt in
1805. In 1831, Muhammad Ali turned against the sultan and attacked Ottoman
forces, gaining temporary control of an area that now includes Syria. In 1841,
the Ottoman Empire granted him and his family the hereditary right to rule
Egypt. His descendants held this right until 1953, though they usually ruled under
British control."
> Your historical revisionism is
belied by the impact this 'non-event', as you put it, had on the world at the
time...
It is not my historical revisionism
here it is those who say that the empire fell in 1840. You in your support of
the 1840 theory have made giant assumptions which are not based in historical
fact. You can create all kinds of "what if" scenarios but that is not
history, that is supposition.
My Historians' History of the World
published in 1904 certainly does not reflect the view you quote from a book
written by SDA's. Now if you could show that the world around 1840 thought the
treaty was the end of the empire, I would encourage you to show us that
information. The SDA viewpoint is likely not the most objective in this area.
The Historian's History on page 436
conclude the section of the Ottoman Empire by saying in part: "The
regeneration of Turkey, is not yet utterly beyond hope, if Europe were
seriously disposed to prevent the outbreak of the great war which would be
likely to follow on the heels of a collapse of the Ottoman Empire..."
Did these historians think the
ottoman empire was gone in 1904, did they feel it was ludicrous to call it an
empire after 1840? No they did not. Nor should we even if it means admitting
that Josiah Litch was not correct in his prediction.
So long for now
Ron Corson