56 Questions that critics are afraid to answer.

[todd_vetter33]

#47. She copied The Great Controversy from JN Andrews. (10/17/2009)

48. "Ellen G. White copied extensively from this book (Wylie's History of Protestantism) and claimed it was a revelation from God!" (10/17/2009)

I answered every question on your list with a single post and you cried that I was spamming you?  He who is with out sin in this room may continue accusation against Ellen White.  Untill you are purified of your own wickedness what will it profit you to judge a woman who loved God just as much as you do?

If you love God Keep all his commandments.

P.S.  DJ  God is still waiting for you to unbury the treasure of knowlege we learned together about pride and the ignorance it causes when God does not speak in your ear or put in your mouth what to say.  It's not pretty for the servant that burys the treasure that he was to invest even if the knowlege of information was a personal reproach.

The OT is full of lessons learned at the expense of others yet they are shared for you to learn from and still you have learned nothing for this is the state of the dead.

[djconklin]

I answered every question on your list with a single post

If you thought that was an answer you are greatly confused.

The spamming was for spamming your unrelated POV on every thread.

Untill you are purified of your own wickedness what will it profit you to judge a woman who loved God just as much as you do?

1) Where's the proof of my wickedness?
2) Where's the proof that I judged Ellen White?

Bearing false witness against others is a sin and yet you think you can condemn me.

The OT is full of lessons learned at the expense of others yet they are shared for you to learn from and still you have learned nothing for this is the state of the dead.

I have learned nothing?  I have a bibliography on this study the proves you lied on that score. This is yet another example of your spamming.

[todd_vetter33]

I answered every question on your list with a single post

If you thought that was an answer you are greatly confused.

The spamming was for spamming your unrelated POV on every thread.

Untill you are purified of your own wickedness what will it profit you to judge a woman who loved God just as much as you do?

1) Where's the proof of my wickedness?
2) Where's the proof that I judged Ellen White?

Bearing false witness against others is a sin and yet you think you can condemn me.

The OT is full of lessons learned at the expense of others yet they are shared for you to learn from and still you have learned nothing for this is the state of the dead.

I have learned nothing?  I have a bibliography on this study the proves you lied on that score. This is yet another example of your spamming.

Am I sharing my POV or is someone else directing me what to speak?  Ask God and if you are of the truth he can tell you.

God Bless

[djconklin]

Am I sharing my POV or is someone else directing me what to speak?

Given that you have lied about me, it would be the former.

[djconklin]

Today's mistake:

"Then she blamed the errors in the 1843 charts on GOD, for "hiding HER mistakes" !!!!!!!!!!"

[DCR]

Are you just pulling these statements from random people?

[djconklin]

Whenever I run into them.  Only one person made about 3-4 of the claims.  Usually, it is about one a piece.

The really weird part is that I have yet to see any of the critics disown any of them!

Some, it seems to me, are so obviously bizarre that I cannot imagine anyone supporting it.  Others can be proven wrong in about 5 minutes or less.  And yet no critic of Ellen White rejects any of them!

[DCR]

Whenever I run into them.  Only one person made about 3-4 of the claims.  Usually, it is about one a piece.

The really weird part is that I have yet to see any of the critics disown any of them!

Some, it seems to me, are so obviously bizarre that I cannot imagine anyone supporting it.  Others can be proven wrong in about 5 minutes or less.  And yet no critic of Ellen White rejects any of them!

How can anyone "disown" them when we don't even know who they are or in what context these statements were made?

[djconklin]

Whenever I run into them.  Only one person made about 3-4 of the claims.  Usually, it is about one a piece.

The really weird part is that I have yet to see any of the critics disown any of them!

Some, it seems to me, are so obviously bizarre that I cannot imagine anyone supporting it.  Others can be proven wrong in about 5 minutes or less.  And yet no critic of Ellen White rejects any of them!

How can anyone "disown" them when we don't even know who they are or in what context these statements were made?

Hmmm, when you were in grade school you were taught to paraphrase.  It is a legitimate literary activity.  Now, when someone tells you that Ellen White plagiarized by paraphrasing do you nod like a ditto-head (then the claim would be accepted because of a confirmation bias)  or do you recognize it as a lie?  That was the second claim.

When the Bible critics claimed that the bible writers believed in unicorns and othe mythical creatures existed and that turtles had a voice, I didn't ask what was the context.  I checked it all out and proved them wrong--four in one afternoon!  So, when others saw the posts they knew that they couldn't trust the Bible critics any more.

When Rush Limbaugh claimed that there are more trees now than when Columbus landed do you need to know the "context" in order to know if it is true or not?

When George Will claimed in a Newsweek editorial that the World Meteorlogical Organization said that temps hadn't risen in the past decade, no one asked what was the context.  We looked up "World Meteorlogical Organization" to see what they said (the exact opposite) and that is how he got caught.

Now again with Ellen White.  The claim is that the Library of Congress wouldn't allow her book The Great Controversy into the library because of the plagiarisms involved.  I didn't look at the "context." I opened a new internet window and searched for the Library of Congress. It took me about 5 minutes to find out that they had 13 copies.

Would it really help you to see that in the context of some cases when the claim was being made that the guy claimed I had a tin hat?

[DCR]

Whenever I run into them.  Only one person made about 3-4 of the claims.  Usually, it is about one a piece.

The really weird part is that I have yet to see any of the critics disown any of them!

Some, it seems to me, are so obviously bizarre that I cannot imagine anyone supporting it.  Others can be proven wrong in about 5 minutes or less.  And yet no critic of Ellen White rejects any of them!

How can anyone "disown" them when we don't even know who they are or in what context these statements were made?

Hmmm, when you were in grade school you were taught to paraphrase.  It is a legitimate literary activity.  Now, when someone tells you that Ellen White plagiarized by paraphrasing do you nod like a ditto-head (then the claim would be accepted because of a confirmation bias)  or do you recognize it as a lie?  That was the second claim.

When the Bible critics claimed that the bible writers believed in unicorns and othe mythical creatures existed and that turtles had a voice, I didn't ask what was the context.  I checked it all out and proved them wrong--four in one afternoon!  So, when others saw the posts they knew that they couldn't trust the Bible critics any more.

You're actually making my point here.  If someone were to look through a KJV translation of the Bible, they would see references to unicorns.

Context does matter... since the word translated as unicorn from the Hebrew does not necessarily refer to the mythical creature we typically think of.  But, someone might not know that without knowing the context of language in the KJV.

When Rush Limbaugh claimed that there are more trees now than when Columbus landed do you need to know the "context" in order to know if it is true or not?

I don't have the data necessary to either affirm or deny that.  There's an answer to that question that "seems" more likely than the other.  But, without hard data and absolute proof, I could no more personally deny the claim than I could affirm it.

When George Will claimed in a Newsweek editorial that the World Meteorlogical Organization said that temps hadn't risen in the past decade, no one asked what was the context.  We looked up "World Meteorlogical Organization" to see what they said (the exact opposite) and that is how he got caught.

This also demonstrates my point.  I am not familiar with that situation.  To make any kind of judgment, I would need to see George Will's statement in context, not simply a characterization of what he said.  Temps hadn't risen in the past decade where?  On a global scale?  Or, perhaps, only in some specific locality?  You didn't say.  That's where context helps.  

[djconklin]

You're actually making my point here.  If someone were to look through a KJV translation of the Bible, they would see references to unicorns.

You skipped the first example which was directly related to the list.

As for the unicorns, you don't need to see the context.  You only need to know what the Hebrew word means.  To answer the question all you need is a concordance to look up the relevant texts and then Strong's concordance (or similar) to find out which Hebrew word was used.  That's what I did in order to prove the critics wrong.  They didn't even do the most basic of research.

without knowing the context of language in the KJV.

Never heard the phrase "context of language" before.  Usually, it is historical, cultural or literary.

I would need to see George Will's statement in context, not simply a characterization of what he said.

Where's the proof that it was a characterization and not as it was?

Temps hadn't risen in the past decade where?  On a global scale?  Or, perhaps, only in some specific locality?  You didn't say.

Neither did he, the World Meteorlogical Organization or his critics.

That's where context helps.

And yet, neither he, the World Meteorlogical Organization or his critics gave one.

[djconklin]

"5. JESUS’ BROTHERS WERE OLDER THAN HE AND THEY WERE THE SONS OF JOSEPH AND SIDED WITH THE RABBIS.

EGW — YES: "All this displeased His brothers. Being older than Jesus, they felt that He should be under their dictation. His brothers, as the sons of Joseph were called, sided with the rabbis. They insisted that the traditions must be heeded, as if they were the requirements of God." (Desire of Ages, p.86,87).

Note: Not Biblical. ... How can Adventists claim that the Bible is the source of their faith and accept this as the truth, and do it with a straight face? The Bible clearly states that Jesus was the firstborn of Mary.(And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.) How can the firstborn have older brothers?(Matthew 1:25; Luke 2:7)."

Where's the proof that Joseph didn't have sons before marrying Mary?

ROFL! They point to Matthew 1:25 and Luke 2:7 which clearly say "her firstborn"! What part of "her" was too hard to understand?

[djconklin]

Two in one day!

51. 7. ELLEN G. WHITE THE ONLY PROPHET GIVEN WINGS WHILE IN VISION.

>EGW — YES: "The Lord has given me a view of other worlds. Wings were given me, and an angel attended me from the city to a place that was bright and glorious." (Early Writings p.39).

Note that she didn't say that she was the only prophet to be given wings. What does that tell you when they lie like that? Hoping you wouldn't catch their lie? Did they think that you were too stupid to catch them?

[DCR]

Two in one day!

51. 7. ELLEN G. WHITE THE ONLY PROPHET GIVEN WINGS WHILE IN VISION.

>EGW — YES: "The Lord has given me a view of other worlds. Wings were given me, and an angel attended me from the city to a place that was bright and glorious." (Early Writings p.39).

Note that she didn't say that she was the only prophet to be given wings. What does that tell you when they lie like that? Hoping you wouldn't catch their lie? Did they think that you were too stupid to catch them?

But, did they say that she claimed to be the only prophet to have received wings in a vision?  That isn't how I read it.  The statement merely points out that no other prophet is known to have received wings in a vision... not that she claimed to be the only one.

Try not to mischaracterize others' statements.  That's why context is important.

[djconklin]

Two in one day!

51. 7. ELLEN G. WHITE THE ONLY PROPHET GIVEN WINGS WHILE IN VISION.

>EGW — YES: "The Lord has given me a view of other worlds. Wings were given me, and an angel attended me from the city to a place that was bright and glorious." (Early Writings p.39).

Note that she didn't say that she was the only prophet to be given wings. What does that tell you when they lie like that? Hoping you wouldn't catch their lie? Did they think that you were too stupid to catch them?

But, did they say that she claimed to be the only prophet to have received wings in a vision.  That isn't how I read it.  The statement merely points out that no other prophet is known to have received wings in a vision... not that she claimed to be the only one.

Yes: "7. ELLEN G. WHITE THE ONLY PROPHET GIVEN WINGS WHILE IN VISION."

She did NOT say that she was the "only" prophet to be given wings.  She merely noted that she was given wings.  She says nothing about anyone else.

You correctly note: "not that she claimed to be the only one."  The one's who made the claim disagree with you.

Try not to mischaracterize others' statements.  That's why context is important.

I try very hard to tell the truth.  Occassionally I will screw up and then I admitted it (unlike the critics who haven't disowned even a single claim that any critic has ever made).