Christians quote other Christian's words all the time. R. C. Sproll and Billy Graham are favorites among many radio preachers. But the minute someone quotes EGW, everyone loses their minds SMH
I am a Seventh Day Adventist, Ask Me.
- Thread starter gotime
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I'm a proud Seventh-day Adventist and I challenge ANYONE to disprove any of my beliefs from Scripture, be they having to do with prophecy, salvation, the New Covenant, the Ten Commandments, Christian lifestyle, the State of the Dead, the Reward of the Wicked, etc. While I love the writings of EGW, I don't have to appeal to a single word of them.
"The Bible, and the Bible alone is our creed, the sole bond of union". - EGW.
It is the BIBLE we use in order to substantiate any one of our spiritual propositions - beliefs that have time and time again been proven to stand the test of Biblical scrutiny like no others.
there's a pretty big and obvious flaw with that - 'Mikael' means 'who is like God?' in the sense that it is an interrogative, not a descriptive phrase.
Er...I've known for almost two decades "Mee--Kie-El" means "Who is like God". It is not necessarily interrogative, which would be a silly name for anyone - no other Biblical name is a question.
BTW, were you ever able to locate even a single verse in Scripture where it says the wicked are able to be recipients of "agape" love? After I shot down your attempt to make "agapeo" the same as "agape" so could appeal to John 3:19 as "proof" that the wicked can be recipients of "agape" - which any sane person can see is not the case because they fully understand it's impossible for an enemy of God's agape love to partake of God's agape love - I never heard back from you.
Are you willing to admit the "many" of Matthew 24:12-13 KJV are saints now, because the text says these "many" allow their "agape" love to grow cold and dead? If you can accept that "lukewarmness" is enough for Jesus to spit them out of His mouth, how much more objectionable to Jesus are these "many" whose "agape" grows COLD and dead within them?
Therefore, these "many" partakers of God's "agape" love cannot be the wicked - but are the righteous - and, according to Matthew 24:12-13 KJV, wind up LOST due to their allowing iniquity to kill their agape cold and dead.
Why don't SDA's ascribe deity to the prophet Michaiah who revealed Ahab's upcoming death?
After all nany beings could be called el. Angels are called elobim. But Iah is a shortened form of the divine name that appears in human names.
After all nany beings could be called el. Angels are called elobim. But Iah is a shortened form of the divine name that appears in human names.
Most people do not take long flowery writings from Sproll or Graham on health or a million other topics and treat them like they are inspired by God or church doctrine. Some SDAs act like this.
I don't care much if a preacher writes a dull or flowery book on health. But it would bother me if people treated those writings as if they were important spiritual documents, kind of like the Bible. Not all SDAs are quite like that. Some seem to be.
If I wasn't very clear in the last post, 'Who is like YAH" is a more exalted-sounding name than "Who is like el'?
Yah refers to Yahweh. Elohim usually refers to Yahweh in the Bible, but it also refers to lesser beings like angels. Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels Hebrews says, but the Hebrew says elohim.
To be said to be like Yahweh is a much clearer and exalted thing than to be said to be like 'el.
Micaiah the prophet has the more grandious-sounding name, IMO, than the archangel.
Yah refers to Yahweh. Elohim usually refers to Yahweh in the Bible, but it also refers to lesser beings like angels. Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels Hebrews says, but the Hebrew says elohim.
To be said to be like Yahweh is a much clearer and exalted thing than to be said to be like 'el.
Micaiah the prophet has the more grandious-sounding name, IMO, than the archangel.
SDA believe that Jesus knows all things, being God. The usual interpretation I heard was that he chose not to know some things with his human brain, while being on earth.
Because the prophet you speak of wasn’t appearing as an angel as Jesus did to Abraham, Moses, Manoah, Joshua, etc., when on those occasions the Angel appearing freely received worship, and rightly so.
He was an ordinary created human prophet.
Created angels refuse worship, as did the angel appearing to John, but God manifesting Himself as an Angel deserves all the worship and adoration available.
Well, if she was indeed a prophet, we must remember what the Scripture says about God's prophets:
"Believe in God, and thou shalt be established. Believe His prophets and thou shalt prosper."
I don't know a single person who's been hurt by reading EGW. The Health Message has proven to benefit countless people; the counsel on Christian lifestyle, marriage, rearing children, etc., are indispensable. Many Adventist preachers know that non-Adventist preachers are using EGW's writings because they hear them quoting from her writings, sometimes verbatim, but they can never admit where they are getting their info from, which is cool - as long as people are hearing and accepting truth, that's all that matters.
Wrong, sir. "Micah is derived from the Hebrew "Michaiah", and is a response to "who is like God", namely "who is a coward", a rhetorical question to which the answer is "none who trust in YHWH", and is meant as a show of trust in Him.
I'm not sold on "Who is as God" being interrogatory, but if that is so, I still have no problem applying it to Jesus because no one would ever agree such a name could ever be associated with a created being, right?
https://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Micah.html
I"ve never heard of non-SDA preachers quoting EGW. Do you know of any of her prophecies that came to pass?
Huh? That comes across as almost blasphemous. You are looking at the wrong name. That name, Micah, has an aleph, not a yodh, there at the end of the syllable. I am talking about Micah referenced in I Kings 22:8 and onward in the passage. The name translates as 'Who is like Yah', and 'Yah' is short for 'Yahweh.' It is much more explicitly referring to the Creator than the name Michael, since "el" shows up in words that reference the Creator, Yahweh, but also to other beings in addition to Yahweh in certain context
Of course we could. Micaiah was a human prophet. There are also multitudes of human beings named Michael, Michelle, Mikail, etc. on the earth today.
'Worship' is used to translate both a Hebrew and Greek word for prostration.
But where did anyone worship Michael. Michael has a name that means 'who is like God/god'. Micaiah has a name that translates 'who is like Yahweh.' The name does not prove divinity.
Michael is a prince of Israel, but in the passage, there is also a prince of Persia. Why would these two princes be two types of entities? Why would one be divine, but the other not?
Btw, this is a strange comment, because Ellen G. White is a kind of historically obscure figure that most Christians have never heard of, and most people in most churches wouldn't know who she was if someone quoted her and mentioned her name. SDAs may not be aware of that.
Not prophecies, of course, because most if not all non-SDA pastors have drunk the Jesuit "Left Behind" Futurism koolaid. However, when it comes to family and relationships and even points on salvation, I've heard several SDA pastors claim they recognize quotations from the Spirit of Prophecy used in non-SDA sermons.
I included a link to the article on "Micah". There, the Hebrew commentator says "Micah" is a shortened form of "Michaiah" and says it means "who is a coward" (Micah) as a response to "who is like God" (Michaiah). It's like one guy saying, "There's nobody like God" and another guy responding, "With God, we have nothing to fear". Nothing blasphemous about it.
I'm saying if non-SDAs believe it is acceptable to appeal to non-Biblical sources like Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon, Adam Clarke, etc., they shouldn't criticize SDAs for doing the same.
No, Micaiah means 'who is like Yah.' There may be different views over whether Micaiah is a shortened form of Micaiah or has the other meaning you mentioned. But Micaiah does not mean 'who is a coward.'
You can look up the name in an interlinear, looking at I Kings 22:8. https://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_kings/22-8.htm
מִיכָ֖יְהוּ
The yod and heh are clearly right there in the name.
Look at other names, Elijah, Isaiah, Obedaiah.
There was also a priest named 'Eli', without even the 'Mica' part on it and he was a human being.