Some Comments on the Seventh Day Adventist Church.

(from an outsider's perspective)

At the beginning of 2010, some members of the Seventh Day Adventist Church left two booklets at our house, I guess as part of their missionary activities. Having read the booklets, I felt moved to make some comments to the people who left them - their email address was stamped inside the cover. However, as I put words to paper (electronically) I felt the issues went far beyond the average member. Not knowing any ministers, or having any connection with the Seventh Day Adventist Church (SDA), I came to see that all roads seemed closed as far as communicating directly with the SDA and perhaps having them reconsider the material they were handing out.

Since there may be others who have also been given either or both of these two booklets, I thought there could be some value in sharing our thoughts. If you have read either of them, and feel like emailing me your comments, maybe we can learn something from each other.

With the absence of further input at this point, let me make a start. I can always update later.


How far from the truth.

Reading the two booklets again reinforced my belief that the Christian Churches as in 2010 have "lost the plot" as far as being able to present the truth that was in the original Bible. Don't get me wrong, there was truth presented in both booklets, but mixed with so much error (as I see it) that people would probably be better off not reading them. Of course, if you have the basic truths of the original Bible (the Bible before it was corrupted with errors) in your mind, then you can extract the truth and reject the error. But, if you are an average Christian, especially a new Christian, what they are saying may well look "Biblical", and therefore OK -  but it is not OK.

I'll start with the "easy" one first.

"Ten Commandments Twice Removed"

Written by Danny Shelton and Shelly Quinn.

As an overall comment, the title suggests the booklet is about the Ten Commandments, and while they do get a mention, in reality the booklet is about the Fourth Commandment. Sure, the Sabbath is important, but people need instruction in how to keep all Ten Commandments.

I have no real problems with what is said about keeping the Sabbath.

My main concern lies with what is said in the booklet about the "Law of Moses".

Personal Pronouns.
Already I have used some personal pronouns. This may cause some people to think "who gives you the right to sit in judgment about a religious booklet?"  My answer is "we have to". If we (the Christians of today) do not monitor - make judgments - about what we put into our mind, we will very quickly loose track of what is right (before God) and what is wrong.

If you have read the book "The Silence of Adam" you will already be familiar with the fact that because Adam kept silent when Eve was taking the forbidden fruit, he allowed sin to come into the world.  Eve was deceived by the serpent, but Adam was not  (1 Tim 2:14). He had the ability to speak up and stop the action (sin). Instead he remained silent, and then ate the fruit as well. Big mistake.

I am speaking up because I see people being instructed in a way of life that will result in sin.

One of the definitions for "judgment" given in WordWeb is "(5) The capacity to assess situations or circumstances shrewdly and draw sound conclusions". I am trying to do just that.  When I see religious groups passing off their church's traditions as "truth", I think it is time to "draw sound conclusions" about what is truth and what is just tradition.

I have no problem with groups having their own internal traditions which they follow.  The Catholic Church is very open about that. The problems start when churches use certain verses in the Bible to try and give those traditions Biblical backing, and then use those traditions to try to draw others into their group.

After reading my comments, you should make your own decision about whether the facts I present, or the booklets themselves, are the more accurate.

Just in case you are reading this article without reading the Introduction at the beginning of this web site, you need to understand that our current English Bibles contain hundreds of verses in error. To get back to the "original" Bible (or as close as we can get), you first have to isolate or resolve the corrupt verses that Satan (who deceives the whole world, including Christians, Rev 12 :9) [see "The Great Deception" in the Miscellaneous Index] has inspired men to put into the original manuscripts. Most "differences" between Christian religions have come about because men have zeroed in on the errors (and ignored the many other verses that contradict the errors) and made them part of their doctrines. Obviously the verses that are in error have an appeal to men, because they usually "water down" the original truth, or give the truth a "mystery" feel that only those "in the know" can talk about.

The name of this web site - NewBiblicalUnderstanding.info - has come about because of our realization that we have to read ALL the Bible has to say about a topic - in other words, find a theme that runs throughout the Bible - and then reject those verses that are in conflict with the Bible theme. In copying the Bible by hand in past centuries, it was easy to "make a mistake" or even "change" a verse as you copied, but almost impossible to change every place a topic is mentioned. We can use this fact to isolate the verses contaminated by men. I should also mention that besides the corruption in the original language, our English Bibles also suffer from mistranslations, and misinterpretation.

The Law of Moses.
In the booklet "Ten Commandments Twice Removed",  I feel the problems start on page 33.

The writers quote from Gal 3:10-13 "for as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse. ... No one is justified by the law. ... The law is not of faith. ... Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law"

Then they quote from Rom 3:31, 7:12 "Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law. ... Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good"

So far so good.  But then they drop their bombshell.

Middle of page 33: "Can you identify which of the two [emphasis mine] laws Paul was referring to in these passages? By the end of this study, you will know that in Galatians 3:10-13, he referred to the Law of Moses - in Romans 3:31 and 7:12, he referred to the Ten Commandment Law of God, established in our hearts by faith."

As I understand it, and I will try to show, there are not two laws being mentioned - just one.

Before I do that, we perhaps should pick up on the expression that was used - "the Law of Moses". It is true that some Bibles do contain the expression. It is also true that within groups of people with many things in common, they will sometimes have "in house" expressions or abbreviations to speed up their conversation.

I have not found any place in the Bible where it describes Moses going off on his own, and then writing down a list of his own laws (his ruling on divorce may be an exception). What I do find repeated many times, is Moses listening to God stating His laws, and then Moses going off and writing them down. The Ten Commandments - the umbrella over all of God's laws - was written by God, on two stone tablets.

So, the phrase "the Law of Moses" is a shorthand way of saying "the Laws given by God, and then recorded by Moses". Unfortunately, because the shorthand phase was used so often, people became confused about what Moses did and what God did. Jesus had to remind them of who did what.

 [All bold within Scripture, mine.]

Joh 6:31-32 NET.  Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, just as it is written, 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat.' "  (32)  Then Jesus told them, "I tell you the solemn truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven [obviously some thought that Moses did], but my Father [did, and right now] is giving you the true bread from heaven.

The "Law of Moses" is not some man-made law that can be easily tossed to one side. The laws Moses recorded are God's laws, and  still stand today.  Sure, after Jesus's death and His sacrifice being accepted by God, there have been some changes.

Heb 7:12 NET. " For when the priesthood changes, a change in the law must come as well." 

Please note - it does say "change", not "done away".

Also note - the things that change are mainly caused by a change of priesthood.

For instance, circumcision is now "of the heart" and not "of the flesh" (Rom 2:28,29).  Col 2:11 NET.  "In him you also were circumcised — not, however, with a circumcision performed by human hands, but by the removal of the fleshly body, that is, through the circumcision done by Christ". We [today's Christians] do not have to sacrifice animals, but we are required to sacrifice our own bodies (Rom 12:1).  We no longer have to wash the inner parts of animals, but we do have to wash our robes clean in Christ's blood (Rev 7:14), and so on.

There were some regulations that were put into place "until the new order came". Since we have accepted Christ's sacrifice, and therefore part of the New Order, we don't need to act out the things that were a foreshadow.

However, the regulations are still required for those not yet a part of the New Order - those who have not heard about Christ's sacrifice, or have not got the faith to believe in it.

The Old and New Order.

The Ten Commandments, and their amplification through the Statutes, Judgments and Laws given by God still stand today. Prior to the day of Pentecost 33 AD, when the Holy Spirit was made available to those who are called, the people were given additional things to do to remind them of their sin and the need for the Messiah to come.

Jer 7:22-23 NKJV "For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices. [These were added later] (23)  But this is what I commanded them, saying, 'Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be My people. And walk in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well with you.'"

To state the above in simple terms, all the laws given by God up to the end of chapter 24 in Exodus, still stand. The burnt offerings, sacrifices, washings, food and drink offerings, that are given in Exodus chapters 25 to 40, and are to do with the Tabernacle (later the Temple) are the things that have "changed" for today's Christians (but not non-Christians). God has given us many commands about the way we are to "walk" through life (see especially Exodus 20 - 24), and we are most definitely required to follow those commands as best we can.

If you read the following verses carefully, you can see the difference between the Old Order and the New Order.

Heb 9:8-15 NET.  "The Holy Spirit is making clear that the way into the holy place had not yet appeared as long as the old tabernacle was standing.  (9)  This was a symbol for the time then present, when gifts and sacrifices were offered that could not perfect the conscience of the worshiper.  (10)  They served only for matters of food and drink and various washings; they are external regulations imposed until the new order came.  (11)  But now Christ has come as the high priest [therefore a change in the priesthood] of the good things to come. He passed through the greater and more perfect tent not made with hands, that is, not of this creation,  (12)  and he entered once for all into the most holy place not by the blood of goats and calves but by his own blood, and so he himself secured eternal redemption.  (13)  For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a young cow sprinkled on those who are defiled consecrated them and provided ritual purity,  (14)  how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our consciences from dead works to worship the living God.  (15)  And so he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the eternal inheritance he has promised, since he died to set them free from the violations committed under the first covenant."

We now have two different groups of people in the world. Those "not called" and therefore who have not accepted the sacrifice of Christ and are still under the "Old Order", and those "who are called" and have accepted Christ's sacrifice and have been baptized and have received the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands, and therefore are a part of the "New Order". Notice that during the millennium people will still be giving sacrifices at God's temple in Jerusalem, showing that the Old Order system will be required until all people have moved to the New Order.

Zec 14:20-21 NET.  "On that day the bells of the horses will bear the inscription "HOLY TO THE LORD." The cooking pots in the LORD's temple will be as holy as the bowls in front of the altar.  (21)  Every cooking pot in Jerusalem and Judah will become holy in the sight of the LORD who rules over all, so that all who offer sacrifices may come and use some of them to boil their sacrifices in them. On that day there will no longer be a Canaanite [local expression for an unclean person] in the house of the LORD who rules over all."


The point I am trying to make is that NOTHING has been "done away", and Jesus when He was on earth, said the some thing. Mat 5:17-18 NET.  "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish these things but to fulfill them.  (18)  I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth pass away not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter will pass from the law until everything takes place".


Some actions and symbolism has changed for those now of the New Order, but none of God's law - as recorded by Moses in the first five books of the Bible - has been "done away". They still stand, and are still a useful guide for life, and especially for those who have never heard the name "Jesus Christ". Most of the laws spoken by God and recorded by Moses teach us how to apply the Second Great Commandment (treat others the way we would like to be treated if we were in their position), and the others teach us how to be Holy as God is Holy, or remind us that our sins have to be dealt with.

Just one Law.

Back to the point the authors were trying to make that there are two different laws being talked about in Galatians 3 and Romans 3,7.

I do not think anyone has a difficulty with understanding that Romans 3 and 7 are talking about the Ten Commandments. If you read Rom 7 you will see that Paul even mentions the 10th Commandment (not to covet). Given that that is true, we need to take a closer look at Gal 3.

I readily admit, that for some people, Galatians can be difficult to understand. Part of that difficulty is understanding the problem the Apostle Paul is trying to address.

Let us look at some verses and see if we can put what Paul is saying in context. Right at the beginning of the letter he touches on a major problem.

Gal 1:6 NET.  "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one [God,John 6:44] who called you by the grace of Christ and are following a different gospel —"  

This should set off warning bells and flashing red lights to us - we do not want to follow the Galatians into a different gospel.

What started them down this wrong road?

Gal 4:17 NET.  "They court you eagerly, but for no good purpose; they want to exclude you [from the body of Christ], so that you would seek them eagerly".

Men had come into the church, and with slick stories and dire promises, were trying to get a following. One of their requirements is shown in Gal 5:2-3 NET. " Listen! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you at all!  (3)  And I testify again to every man who lets himself be circumcised [for religious reasons, after accepting Christ's sacrifice] that he is obligated to obey the whole law." [I take this to mean that if you go back to physical circumcision, you also have to go back to the Temple sacrifices and associated traditions.]  In other words, they wanted people to step back into the Old Order.

Yes, circumcision is part of the Law of God, started by God with Abraham (Gen 17:10), and later recorded by Moses (Lev 12:3). As I have already shown, it is still a law - but what gets circumcised has been changed for those of us of the New Order (our heart not our flesh).  Looking backward to the original intent of physical circumcision, misses the whole point of what Christ was willing to die for. Gal 3:3 NET.  "Are you so foolish? Although you began with the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by human effort?"

In Col 3, Paul is explaining that looking to a Law will never give the same results as exercising our faith that Christ died to pay for our sins, and release us from the death penalty.   Remember, all humans have sinned (1 John 1:10), and therefore are under the death penalty for breaking God's Law. Just keeping the Law from then on (though it is doubtful anyone could do it) will not remove that penalty.  We have to have the faith that Christ's sacrifice will cover (atone) our past sins and also any future sins.

To put it another way, we will never get salvation by obeying laws - Old Testament laws nor New Testament laws, or even "man's" traditions.  If you go to Gal 3 and replace every time the word "law" is used with "Ten Commandments" or "the Law of God", it still makes perfect sense. There is just one law being talked about - the Law of God as recorded by Moses, and this includes the Ten Commandments.  

However, we are still required to keep the Law of God, including the Ten Commandments (but not the Temple rituals to remind us of sin and the need for the Messiah to come) - not as a way of obtaining salvation, but as a way of showing love to God and our fellow man.

The "curse of the law" comes from Deut 27 and especially verses 15-26. If you read those verses you will see that the curses apply to all the law given by God and recorded by Moses, and does include the Ten Commandments.  The formula is very simple - obey God's laws (all of it) and you will be blessed: disobey God's law and you will be cursed.  Since mankind is unable to obey the law without spiritual help, then it follows that all men, at some point in their lives, fall under the "curse of the law". Once that happens, no amount of further "keeping of the law" by ourselves will undo the problem.

This brings us to the "handwriting of ordinances" in Col 2:14. It also is mentioned on page 33 of the booklet.

"Handwriting of Ordinance".

Col 2:13-14 KJV  "And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;  (14)  Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;"

How have we been forgiven "all trespass" - by blotting out the debt we owed from breaking God's law. God's law is not "against us" - it shows us what we should do in every situation, if we are going to love God and our fellow man - but what is "against us" is the penalty for having broken God's law in the past.  By Jesus being willing to be nailed to the tree, we now have a way of having that requirement against us removed.

When Jesus was nailed to the tree and was killed with a spear through His side [a sacrifice has to be killed by loss of blood], no law was "done away", but there was now a way for us to receive forgiveness for our past sins.

You might want to see,

Phillips Translation of the New Testament.
Jamieson Fausset and Brown
Complete Jewish Bible

I think the Jerusalem Bible puts it rather well. Col 2:13,14 " ... he has forgiven us all our sins. 14 He has overridden the Law, and canceled every record of the debt that we had to pay; he has done away with it by nailing it to the cross."

A debt was canceled - not a law.

The End Result.

The booklet, by wrongly using Col 2:14 to do away with "the Law of Moses" (actually God's Law recorded by Moses), leaves a huge void in a Christian's understanding. All the Laws, Statutes and Judgments spoken by God are "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness".  And that includes the Laws given to, and recorded by, Moses.

To limit God's words to just the Ten Commandments, puts a veil over people's eyes - from which they may never recover.

Instead of keeping God's Holy Days as outlined in Ex 23 and Lev 23 - which spell out the seven key points in God's plan for salvation - people look to the pagan holidays that were adapted to "Christianity" by the Catholic church, like Christmas and Easter.  Because people do not keep God's calendar or His Holy Days, they think Jesus died on a Friday and was raised on the Sunday - making ridicule of the only sign Jesus said he would give the Jews of His day, that he would be 72 hours [as was Jonah in the fish] in the tomb (earth). Jesus was put into the tomb around sunset on a Wednesday and walked out of it around sunset on the Saturday. The tomb had long been empty when the angel opened it on the Sunday morning.

And so on, and so on.

The lack of Biblical understanding is great among those who do away with the "Law of Moses".

Another Point.

On page 34, the statement is made "Bible Scriptures aren't contradictory."

This is a nice thought, but just not true for our current English Bibles..

One obvious example is Proverbs 26, verses 4 and 5 - one says to not answer a fool, and the other says to answer him.  Of course, the reason you follow a particular proverb depends on why you are doing it - but contradict they do.

Another example is Mat 5:3 and Luke 6:20, and also Mat 5:6 and Luke.6:21

Mat 5:3 NET.  "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to them.

Luk 6:20 NET.  Then he looked up at his disciples and said:
    "Blessed are you who are poor, for the kingdom of God belongs to you.

Matthew says 'Poor in spirit", which contradicts Luke's just being "poor". Remember, they are both describing the same event.

Mat 5:6 NET.  "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be satisfied.

Luk 6:21 NET.  "Blessed are you who hunger now, for you will be satisfied.
                            Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh.'

Being someone who "hungers and thirsts for righteousness" is quite different than someone who is just "hungry" - yet both authors are supposedly quoting the words spoken by Jesus, in what is commonly known as the "Sermon on the Mount".

The answer is simple when you read Luke 1:1-3.  Luke was accurately recording what people were telling him about 30 years after the event. Obviously, by passing down the stories of what took place while Jesus was on earth, some of the "truth" had become lost. Matthew, an eye witness would remember, it seems, a more accurate version. There are over 60 places where the stories in Luke contradict the facts, or give a different sequence of events that contradict the other Gospels.

You can find one person's list of contradictions at;
http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html
[I don't agree will some, but most I do].

There are around 20 Scriptures used to say that Jesus was God before His birth, which contradict over 150 verses that state, or support, there is - and always was - only one God. And the list goes on. No doubt there was less contradiction in the original writings, but contradiction within the Bible is something we need to be aware of, and then resolve when we come across it.


The confusion and mis-information caused by the first booklet is bad, but the second booklet is worse.


Darkness before Dawn.

Written by Ellen G. White.

I must admit, it has been over 24 hours since I wrote the above.

I hind-sight, what has been on my mind, is, do I tell it like I think it is, or do I take a position that would be more palatable to most people?

If you think "Ellen G. White" is still beyond reproach - may I suggest you hit the back arrow, or close the file right now.  You will not want to read what follows.

There is no "soft" way - that I can come up with, and still be honest - of handling my comments about this booklet.

The booklet is a mixture of Biblical fact, church tradition, and a touch of fiction.

Writers of many books, including "Lord of the Rings", used Biblical facts/events/morals in storys, but the big difference is that they do not claim it is a "revelation from God". Nevertheless they do come up with some interesting storys. However, from what I have read, Ellen G.White did claim to have had "visions" from God - and that puts "Darkness before Dawn" in a whole new ballpark.

The main point that destroys her argument (that God was speaking through her), is that she uses what we have found to be errors in the King James Version of the Bible, as fact.  I believe, that if God was truly involved in her "visions", He would not have passed on the man made errors of the KJV. 

That said, I do not believe that she was in contact with demons, though no doubt they would have liked to encourage the deceit she was putting on people.

There is a quote on the Internet from Testimonies, vol 4, p 20, written in 1876, in which she says "My work for the past 30 years bears the stamp of God or the stamp of the enemy. There is no halfway work in the matter. The testimonies are of the Spirit of God, or of the devil."  

All the evidence that I see, says that this statement is not completely true. Sure, it does not appear to be testimonies of the devil, but nor does it appear that it all testimonies are of God.  A lot of it came from humans, and a partially corrupt KJV. Of course, all the accurate parts of the KJV that were used would be "of the Spirit of God", so there is some truth in her statement, but it is still a misleading statement as I see it.

She was, as I understand it, simply a victim of her own ego.

I also think that Herbert Armstrong was to some extent as well, as no doubt were and are many others.

Proof.

OK, I have made some bold statements, now I have to give you some proof for what I have said.

As I have already mentioned, the key that lets her down, are the errors in the KJV - the Bible most readily  available in her day.  So, for a moment let us look at some of the history of the King James Version of the Bible.  I have covered it in more depth in  "How to Study the Bible" and the "History of the KJV", and "The Great Deception".   But a brief thumbnail sketch here is in order.

Up to 1382, few English translations were available, and any individual books of the Bible in English that were available, were translated from the Latin Vulgate.

In c 1382, John Wycliffe, made the first complete translation of the Bible into English  - but again it was translated  from the Latin Vulgate.

In 1525, William Tyndale made the first English Translation of the New Testament from the Greek ( the best Greek that was available at that time, but not as good as we have today). A number of other Bibles followed, and many drew on his work - including the KJV to some extent.

In 1560, the Geneva Bible was made available. It was the first translation to be made by a committee,  the first Bible with verse divisions, and the Bible the Pilgrims took to the New Land.  This translation was well received by the people, but rejected by the clergy (it diminished their power over people), who turned around and wrote their own - The Bishop's Bible. Deliberately written to uphold the false doctrine of "hierarchy" through ordination within the church, and promoting the word "church" instead of "congregation".

In 1604, King James, who had been "in politics" for over 30 years in Scotland, (in my words) saw that he needed a strong Church between himself and the people in England to take some of the pressure off himself, called a meeting with the church.  The significant outcome was that he called for a new Bible translation, to be based on the Bishop's Bible. He also imposed other conditions. It appears that he was trying to draw the two camps together (Tyndale/Matthew/Geneva Bible followers and the clergy) and thereby give more power to the church leaders.

In short, the King James Bible, published in 1611, was as much about politics as it was religion. While, for the most part, it used that classic Shakespearian English which people came to love, in substance it fell short of an "accurate" translation of the original languages. For instance, the word "ordain", which was not used in the original Hebrew or Greek, was written into the English KJV over 40 times ( but only eight times used to "give an office to a man", the rest as camouflage).  Without "ordination" a hierarchy is very difficult to maintain. Over and above that, the "Trinity" was pushed, and many other errors were "written" into the script, or the current errors retained.

Prior to the mid 1900's these errors were difficult to pinpoint, but with more accurate translations and the availability of computers and the Internet, things are now much different. The average person today, with even a cheap, small/slow computer and the right programs (some free off the Internet) can start to bring the errors to the surface. Ellen G. White was able to convince people that she was "special" with her "fictionalization" of parts of the Bible in her day, because very few had the ability or means to show that some of what she was saying could not have come from God.  She was, it would seem, using what she read, and what others were writing and saying, from a Bible that has since been proved by many to be corrupt in places.

There are books available to show that Ellen G. White did use the material of others. As did Herbert W. Armstrong (and many others it would seem). He said, that when he read material from others and saw that it was truth, he took that as a "revelation" from God, and used the material in his own writings. Unfortunately, the members of his church took the word "revelation" to mean that somehow Herbert Armstrong was in direct communication with God. The fact that both Ellen G. White, and Herbert W.  Armstrong, used a corrupt KJV Bible to put "incorrect" doctrine into their respective churches, highlights the fact they had no more input from a higher power, than was available to everyone. However, they both used their writing skills to enhance their position in their respective churches. I have no doubt, that at the time, in their minds, they thought that the good they were doing was more important than doing deeper research into their source document.

For us, looking back in hindsight, using the corrupt verses of the KJV, seems to have done more harm than good.

The Biggest Problem.

Scattered throughout the booklet are references to Christ being a "God" before His human birth.

Some examples.
Page 2, Christ was warning Satan at the time of the original rebellion.
Page 4, "... Him who was equal with God ..."
Page 10, twice talks about "the deity of Christ".
Page 19, again talks about "the deity of Christ".
And so on.

The truth of the original Bible is that Jesus (the man) did not exist before God the Father fertilized an egg in Mary's womb, which resulted in His birth.

I think that men, with the help of Satan,  set out to muddy the water by saying Jesus was God before His birth. I guess the logic goes something like, "if Jesus was a ""God"", then I can not be expected to come up to the same standard of character". Maybe they thought that if they put an element of mystery into the Bible, it would make people come to those "who know" to talk about it. What ever their reasons, about 20 Scriptures were changed or misinterpreted, to create the "new understanding" that Jesus was first "God".

I do not blame Ellen White getting caught up in this deception, as most Christians have been, and especially those who believe in the Trinity, or Binitarian concept.  However, if she had truly been in contact with God or Christ, then I feel that this error would have been one of the first to be corrected.  It, and other KJV errors, was not corrected, which leads me to feel that all her writings were the works of "men".

Her claim that she was in direct contact (via visions) with God, in my understanding, comes up as false.

For a detailed explanation of the 20 or so Scriptures used to support the concept that Jesus was a "God" before His birth, you might like to see the article "One or Two Gods?", or the article "The Nature of God and Christ".  There are over 150 (and still counting) Scriptures that state, or support the statement, that there is only one God - God the Father and creator of all mankind.

More Problems.

On page 3 is the statement "With one accord, Satan and his host threw the blame of their rebellion wholly upon Christ, ... ".

The truth of the original Bible is that Christ did not exist at the time of the initial rebellion.


On page 5, "The great controversy between Christ and Satan, that has been carried forward for nearly six thousand years, is soon to close;"

This can not be true, as Jesus was born less than two thousand years ago.


On page 16, "... until His heart was broken and His life crushed out."

This thought also reflects the errors of the KJV. Moffatt puts in the missing part of Mat 27:49. Jesus died because of a spear thrust to His side - big enough to put your hand into (John 20:27). John 19:34 should be in the past tense "... the soldiers had pierced His side ...". Jesus died by having His blood drained out - just like every other sacrifice.  If He had not, He would not be a true sacrifice.


On page 44, in talking about the time of Jacob's trouble, we read "... while persecuted and distressed, while they endure privation and suffer for want of food, they will not be left to perish."

The Bible paints a different picture.

Rev 6:9,11 NET.  Now when the Lamb opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been violently killed because of the word of God and because of the testimony they had given.   (11)  Each of them was given a long white robe and they were told to rest for a little longer, until the full number was reached of both their fellow servants and their brothers who were going to be killed just as they had been.

Rev 13:7 NET.  The beast was permitted to go to war against the saints and conquer them. He was given ruling authority over every tribe, people, language, and nation,

Rev 20:4 NET.  Then I saw thrones and seated on them were those who had been given authority to judge. I also saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of the testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. These had not worshiped the beast or his image and had refused to receive his mark on their forehead or hand. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.


From page 45 to page 62 (the end of the booklet) I feel there are too many problems to try and put them down in this type of article.  Ellen G. White breaks from the Biblical sequence of events (Mat 24:1-31, Mark 13:3-31, the seven seals in Revelation, with the seventh becoming the seven trumpets, and the last trumpet becoming the seven last plagues, and so on) and puts in a lot of her own ideas of what things are going to be like at the end.  It seems to me that this section of the booklet is where she tries the most to embellish the Biblical account with her own writing style.

Or, in other words, draw attention to herself, rather than draw attention to the fine detail of prophecy that is throughout the Bible.


Then it gets Worse.

Jesus made it clear while He was on earth, that He did not want His followers to form a hierarchy or exercise power over others.

Mat 20:25-26 NET. "But Jesus called them and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those in high positions use their authority over them.  (26)  It must not be this way among you! Instead whoever wants to be great among you must be your servant,""

The only New Testament hierarchy that I can find that can be substantiated from the Bible is;

Children, wives, husbands, Christ, God.  (Eph 6:1, 1 Cor 11:3, Eph 5:23)

The fact that the veil in the temple was torn at Jesus's death, shows us that we now have direct access to God the Father.  We no longer need a man acting as High Priest.  Christ is now our High Priest  (Heb 4:14,15) and intercedes for us in heaven.   1Ti 2:5 NET.  "For there is one God and one intermediary between God and humanity, Christ Jesus, himself human",

To fit in with the framework given, if Christ was to send "apostles, prophets, evangelists" (Eph 4:11) then they would not take up a position "over" people without the "signs, wonders and miracles" (2 Cor 12:12) to prove they had Christ's backing.  They would work from the side, assisting people, and their teaching would be consistent with all of the original Bible.  

Some of Ellen G. White's teaching in the "Darkness before Dawn" is not consistent with the original  Bible.

As well, her teachings went beyond advice, and became instructions that in many cases contradict the basic truth of the Bible.


A "Hard to Take" Conclusion.

In light of the above, I am lead to believe that Ellen G. White is - or is like - the Jezebel of Rev 2:20.

Rev 2:20 NET.  "But I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and by her teaching deceives my servants to commit sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols".

Let me try to explain why I think this is a possibility.


The words "who calls herself a prophetess" have some substance.  She said that she was not a prophet - but claimed to be something greater.  In the absence of what that title might be, the default then becomes "prophetess".  Indirectly she did claim to be at least that, and more.


The words "by her teaching deceives my servants" reflects the truth of the matter. She used "her teaching", and the end result is that many are deceived about what is the truth of the original Bible.


The words "to commit sexual immorality" is referring to the end result of her efforts.

The Bible often uses sexual purity - or the lack of it - to describe spiritual purity.  A couple of examples.

Rev 14:4 NET.  "These are the ones who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are virgins. These are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever he goes. These were redeemed from humanity as firstfruits to God and to the Lamb,"

Obviously the 144,000 firstfruits include married men and women. However, in spiritual terms, God sees them as "virgins".

Rev 17:1-2 NET.  Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and spoke to me. "Come," he said, "I will show you the condemnation and punishment of the great prostitute who sits on many waters,  (2)  with whom the kings of the earth committed sexual immorality and the earth's inhabitants got drunk with the wine of her immorality."

The Beast Power and the false prophet use a corrupt religious system to pull people together.  Ellen G. White was not "pure" in her religious instructions, and hence caused big problems for those who followed her.


The words "to eat food sacrificed to idols" involves three aspects.

The Bible often refers to the truth as food (see 1 Cor 3:2, Heb 5:12), the words  "to eat food" is about listening to the truth. Then comes the word "sacrificed".  Something that is sacrificed, is something that is killed, and therefore destroyed.  So, the strength that could have come from understanding the truth of the original Bible is lost. Finally the word "idol".  An idol is anything that comes between us and God.  Ellen G. White set herself up as standing between the people and God (as a sort of high priestess) and thus became an idol herself.  By claiming to have visions, she was trying to be a "go between" between God and mankind.  That would have been OK if it had been true, but clearly there was no additional information given that was not already in the world, or a fertile imagination could not conger up.


The reasons why all this might be true continue.

Rev 2:21 NET.  "I have given her time to repent, but she is not willing to repent of her sexual immorality."

Here, I believe, Jezebel is held up as a type of the church.  What it is saying is that the church has had time to repent - to see the errors in what she was saying - but it does not seemed to have happened.  In January of 2010 we were handed a booklet in which the text was written by Ellen G. White, who has been dead for years.  Most definitely it would be apparent that there has been no repentance - no change in the Church in that time.


Rev 2:23 NET.  "Furthermore, I will strike her followers with a deadly disease, and then all the churches will know that I am the one who searches minds and hearts. I will repay each one of you what your deeds deserve."

There are reports on the Internet - how reliable I am not sure - that indicate the number of people leaving SDA is very high.  My own very limited experience with the SDA church, suggests that they have a good ability to attract interest, especially using people's fascination with prophecy, but not as  good ability to hold that interest, so it could be true that almost as many leave as join. Some reports suggest that it is mainly the young people who leave - the future "pillars" of the church - which could indicate that the church is indeed in a "sick bed".

Part of the problem seems to be that there are men high up in the hierarchy of the church who strongly defend the works of Ellen G. White - and perhaps even promote it possibly more than even she intended.  From reports I have read on the Internet, any minister who tries to bring about reform, is "dealt with" by the administration. I might again add, the concept of a "hierarchy" in the New Testament church was deliberately written into the KJV, and is not God's form of government at this time. No wonder the church is "sick" with so much error being promoted as truth.  I can understand why God can not bless such a situation with growth.

A Ray of Light.

In looking at the Seventh Day Adventist Church from the outside, their troubles look more than what is humanly possible to overcome.

However, there is one statement in Rev 2 that indicates that things might just get better.

Rev 2:19 NET.  'I know your deeds: your love, faith, service, and steadfast endurance. In fact, your more recent deeds are greater than your earlier ones.

How this might come about, I have no idea.  From what I have read, it appears that many men have tried to address the situation, but so far all have been ignored or silenced, or efforts made to discredit them.

It is a sad situation, but I must admit I am surprised by how well Christ outlined (Rev 2:18-29) the situation nearly 2000 years ago.  Let us pray that someone can get a breakthrough, and get them back to the truth of the original Bible, instead of the words of a woman who used the corrupt (in places) KJV.


Bob Orchard  2010


Back.