A Reform-minded Seventh-day Adventist forum In our aim to exalt everything important, first and foremost, we seek to promote a clear understanding of Daniel, Revelation, the three angels' messages and the alpha and omega of apostasy.
Joined: 29 Aug 2003 Posts: 136 Location: JAMAICA, WEST INDIES
Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2004 3:59 am Post subject:
Eduardo Martínez Rancaño wrote:
... Mr. Gillepie. Since you have publicly refused to answer any of my objections to the theories you defend, sir, my reaction to your invitation to read your “thoughts” on these issues is one of outrage. How dare you, sir, invite me to respond here to that which you won’t answer either there or here? Just in case you wonder, yes, I do read your posts. You claim to answer to “classical” objections, but you don’t even do that. The objections you answer to have been tailored to suit your own dialectical capabilities, so they don’t really have a lot of kick left in them. No wonder you answer them so “well.” But answering to real objections is a whole new ball game, isn’t it? Responding to a real opponent, one who won’t let you explain away the real difficulties, is quite another matter, and it is here you have failed entirely, sir. But, in any case, I am more than willing to re-establish an open dialogue with you. If you are ready for such a task, simply start by answering any of my questions, as I formulated them, not anybody else’s, and certainly not your softened version of real or imaginary objections you yourself formulate.
All I can say is, Temper, temper!! Unless we humble ourselvses and become as little children we shall not enter the kingdom of heaven. Pride goeth before destruction, and a hearty spirit before a fall. Finally I must say that my level of dialctics may not be yours, but simple truth need no high level explanation. The sincere readers of my thread (on "Why an Investigative Judgment, and When") on 1844 will be able to determine the truth of the matter for themselves, or whether I watered down the potency of the objections.
I'm not bothered in the least by your desire, or even ability to be a more formidable opponent than others. God's truth protects me and sets me free to be me. I just simply am weary of those who love to major in controversy as some sort of ego boost. If my points presented are wrong ( and I can't see where yet) God will teach me in due time; not you!! Thanks for at least reading my posts. I appreciate that, even if you probably find them more amusing, and or disappointing than insightful. How more and more evident your true nature is being played out on this forum. I however wish you all the best, even to the finding of truth, and the answer to your plethora of questions. I do hope that you don't end up making shipwreck of your faith, and expeience in the Advent movement. That would be truly sad indeed. God bless. _________________ Derrick Gillespie (First labelled "SDA", THEN, "Pseudo-SDA", and then "Impolite". What label next?)
Joined: 13 Jun 2003 Posts: 60 Location: Madrid, Spain
Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2004 6:05 am Post subject:
Yes, perhaps 'Temper, temper!" is indeed all you can say to me. It's a pity such cynical words betray the falsehood of your contention of humbling yourself and being like "little children". I'm sorry I can't have a better opinion of your behaviour in this forum. First you insult me. Then, when I pose some questions to you, you open another thread where you and only the most gullible readers may think that you are refuting real objections. When I go there to present a few real objections, you refuse to answer them and maintain that "sincere" readers of your thread will accept everything you say, which implies that those who do not accept your theories are insincere. Reminds me of the good ol' times of the Inquisition! Very well reasoned indeed! To add insult to injury, you invite me to read your gimcrackery at a place where no disent is admitted! And when I denounce your ploy you state, contrary to all evidence, that you are like a child! Yeah, some child!
As for making shipwreck of faith, my faith is based on Jesus Christ as presented in the Bible. Fortunately, despite my appreciation for it, it is not based on my "expe[r]ience in the Advent movement." There are many good things in the Adventist church (which ceased being a "movement" long, long ago; now it's more like a mechanism or a monument), but there are others which are not so positive. Because of that, if I were to base my faith on my experience as a church member, it would undergo too many disappointing moments. As it is, I am contented because I know the Lord will never disappoint me, despite the occasional encounter with insincere people who claim to be in possession of all truth and yet are unwilling to seriously discuss their views with honest seekers of truth if they happen not to accept the first fairy tale they hear.
Last edited by Eduardo Martínez Rancaño on Wed Mar 03, 2004 4:02 am; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 29 Aug 2003 Posts: 136 Location: JAMAICA, WEST INDIES
Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2004 7:16 am Post subject:
Dear Eduardo ( ),
God bless you, and I will be praying for you.
Quote:
"Y si tuviera el don de profecía, y entendiera todos los misterios y todo conocimiento, y si tuviera toda la fe como para trasladar montañas, pero no tengo amor, nada soy. " - 1 Cor. 13:2
Adios, mi amigo. _________________ Derrick Gillespie (First labelled "SDA", THEN, "Pseudo-SDA", and then "Impolite". What label next?)
Joined: 13 Jun 2003 Posts: 60 Location: Madrid, Spain
Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2004 8:35 am Post subject: Farewell to Mr Gillespie
Considering the censorship to which my posts have been subjected in your thread, your self-proclaimed manifestations of love and prayer are astonishing. Although I didn't deserve speaking or being listened to in your impaired thread, I won't deny you a parting farewell. Goodbye then.
Joined: 29 Aug 2003 Posts: 136 Location: JAMAICA, WEST INDIES
Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2004 7:11 pm Post subject:
EPILOGUE-
THE FOLLOWING CHOICE QUOTES FROM BRO. ROSS (if he will allow me to use them) EXPLAIN MUCH, DON'T THEY? I DO THINK HE HAS CAPTURED THE REALITY IN WORDS BETTER THAN I PROBABLY COULD. GOD BLESS HIS INSIGHT.
Quote:
Dear Eduardo,
I take the points your raise. They can be germaine in many instances but, what you consisently do is play a spoiling game, seeking to wrong foot the other person.
It is merely a play in intellectualism which has already led you woefully astray until the truth, as it is understood by Adventists, has been lost to you. I do not regard that as smart, only unwise.
On the other thread where Mr. Gillespie has sought to explain the Adventist understanding of the 1844 message, you have gone in pursuit and once more played your silly spoiling games which destroys the value his work otherwise has for others.
Quote:
Dear Eduardo,
There is no such thing as a question which cannot be answered, only a mind so set to repel the answer that it appears unanswerable.
Mr. Gillespie has fairly stated the case as understood by Adventists. Your responses did not advance us one wit. They were, in every case only a stall.
You fail in some measure to realise that the prophecies of Daniel have a plenary sense which takes them from the local situation of the Jewish people to the global community. From the Synagogue to the Church.
For Mr. Gillespie and myself, these things are obvious and natural, and we would expect any Seventh-day Adventist to recognise that fact. Particularly one who is as educated as yourself.
My greatest interest in this subject is not so much what is or is not the case so much as to probe the question:- How will people destroy the 1844 message? I suspect that you have provided me with a great deal of information on that question.
1st. the deep antagonism toward E.G. White/S.O.P. followed by 2nd. a stubbon attack on the 1844 doctrine, using 3rd. a psychological system which denies it, 4th. without advancing anything, and 5th. Stalling it.
...I do not suggest that you stop examining the scripture, only that, in so doing you seek to avoid ever learning, but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth which is such a subtle trap.
(Notice now the predictable responsive backlash bound to come from you know where!! Or will I be proven wrong this time? ) _________________ Derrick Gillespie (First labelled "SDA", THEN, "Pseudo-SDA", and then "Impolite". What label next?)
Joined: 13 Jun 2003 Posts: 60 Location: Madrid, Spain
Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2004 3:05 am Post subject:
No, Mr Gillespie, I won't prove you wrong. You've done that yourself. Sir, you have openly refused to debate me. Then, contrary to your self-proclaimed desire to end our fruitless communication, you come back to say that certain words written by someone else prove I don't know what. Like your own words, they prove nothing at all. The only thing that proves plenty is your unscholarly and shameful effort to be allowed all rights to present your views while denying the same right to your opponents. Shame on you, sir! I won't be fooled again by your self-perceived manifestations of prayerful brotherly love. One who is so devious as yourself does not deserve my respect and I very much doubt that your "loving concern and prayers" in my behalf will bring me an inch closer to the throne of grace. I know from the Bible that the prayer of a righteous person is very efficient, but I have no evidence whatever that you qualify as such. Your honesty to discuss the real issues has been proven nonexistent, so the best I can say about you is that you look like a blind leader trying to lead others into something you can't fathom (like your exposition about the 1844 myths, for which you so often requested God's help; I guess that help never came, since your discourse is a complete mess).
I know that your disqualifications of my person, despite your frequent farewells, can continue ad infinitum, so I won't answer to any more personal attacks from you or Ross, sir. I'm more than justified, however, to say something for the last time that facts demonstrate overwhelmingly: since you refuse to debate the objections I've presented, while personally attacking me, you are manifestly a dishonest and truly incompetent individual. The likes of you, sir, made their fortune in the Inquisition. The fact that you are capable of repeating what others (Shea, Doukham, Hasel, etc.) have written about 1844, the sanctuary, the "investigative judgment," the Little Horn, or Antiochus, doesn't make it any more true. My contention is that all the expositions coming from your side of the field are false and half-witted, so repeating a lie one thousand times, or one million times won't make it true.
Attacking me personally because I say what you teach is a lie (and I say it with objective proof) is the wrong procedure, sir. The way to do it is to show me, and all others, that my arguments don't hold water, giving me a fair chance to respond. By now, we all know you are not ready to do that, so you prove yourself dishonest. That's the terrible burden you'll have to carry until you repent from your wrong ways, sir. As for my sinfulness and lack of "brotherly love," I'll let the Lord be a judge of that.
So, I plan not to say anything more of a personal nature regarding the writers of this forum or myself.
Nevertheless, I have to insist. What about the answers to my questions? The longer it takes for you to address the real issues, the more evident it becomes that 1844 is a huge fraud lacking a single shred of evidence in God's Word. And that's about it. That's exactly what you have to address. If I remind you of someone else (or something else) is quite irrelevant, sir.
Joined: 29 Aug 2003 Posts: 136 Location: JAMAICA, WEST INDIES
Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2004 5:14 am Post subject:
Eduardo Martínez Rancaño wrote:
...I have to insist. What about the answers to my questions? The longer it takes for you to address the real issues, the more evident it becomes that 1844 is a huge fraud lacking a single shred of evidence in God's Word. And that's about it. That's exactly what you have to address.
Dear readers, you be the judge of that reality, by clicking the above link! My approach has been (in my judgment the best approach in this particular) to deflate the obsessive desire for open, and circuituous confrontation, and debate, and allow myself enough time to answer the main burden of proof- 1844. Someone is simply throwing a tantrum because "their" questions, and what they deem to be the "real issues" were not taken one by one and debated in, what would most likely be, an endless round of "cut and parry" contest (confrontational style). The questions have been indirectly, and progressively addressed anyhow at the above link (and still in that process to date). Is it that we cannot see the forest because of the trees? Smile. _________________ Derrick Gillespie (First labelled "SDA", THEN, "Pseudo-SDA", and then "Impolite". What label next?)
Joined: 13 Jun 2003 Posts: 60 Location: Madrid, Spain
Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2004 6:15 am Post subject:
Since I'm one of your readers, Mr Gillespie, and you state that it is up to your readers to judge whether you have accomplished what you say you set out to fulfil, my sentence for you is "guilty as charged." The only thing circular here is your shameful and open refusal to answer my questions. My protest against your attitude is not a tantrum, sir. If it were a tantrum, what could I say about yours? You always want to have the last say, but I have at least equal right, don't I?
My argument is far from circular. If I'm mistaken, it should be simple to refute me. Why not give it a go? No sir, your thread did not debate my questions either one by one or jointly. You answered to entirely watered down different questions. Besides, you never address me, you only address your so-far mute readers. What kind of debate is that in which the opponent is ignored and silenced. I've always given you the courtesy of answering you directly, in case you have something to say, but you've denied me even that, except for some empty remarks about how humble you are, and how much you love me.
So, how about answering my questions? Pick one and answer it. Of course, if your answer does not address the question, I'll be the one to say so. I've asked three groups of questions in this thread and ten groups of questions in your thread. No answers have been given to any of these questions. Your remarks on 1844 are nothing but a repetition of the standard position taken by Shea et al., which my remarks completely debunk. That's why, I guess, you refuse to answer them, which shows, once again, q.e.d, that 1844 is heresy sustained with the most ridiculous of unbiblical reasonings (the year-day "principle" and the like).
I guess we'll be hearing from you soon, but, alas, with no answers.
Last edited by Eduardo Martínez Rancaño on Wed Mar 03, 2004 4:15 am; edited 1 time in total
The Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.
Joined: 29 Aug 2003 Posts: 136 Location: JAMAICA, WEST INDIES
Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2004 5:00 am Post subject:
I certainly agree with the Word of God on any issue. Hope we ALL apply them to OUR OWN LIVES. Sorry Eduardo for all my perceived and real impoliteness. Watching now to see how your questions will really be answered satisfactorily. Will not interfere from here on. God bless. Over and out.
Your "impolite" brother in Christ _________________ Derrick Gillespie (First labelled "SDA", THEN, "Pseudo-SDA", and then "Impolite". What label next?)
Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2004 5:19 am Post subject: 1844
Dear Eduardo,
It really is important to discover what and where the hiatus is as well as its nature when otherwise sensible people get themselves into a Gordian knot.
It took a fair while for me to recognise the problem, but suddenly it dawned on me.
In coming down the track of history as revealed in the Book of Daniel, we suddenly come to a fork in the path. One of the new paths is named "Horns" the other is named "Winds."
If we maintain course and speed along the path of "Horns" we naturally arrive at Antiochus and nothing.
If we follow the path named "Winds" we arrive at Imperial Rome, Papal Rome, and U.S.A. Not because any of these are necessarily churches, but because they have but one mind which is termed "babylon" which is an "Attitude of mind" which is anti-Christian, and wonder of wonders they all have had the great good fortune of "Ruling the world."
The question we need to address is, "Why follow the path named Winds?"
Ans. We follow that path because the name "Winds" is feminine, and is thus apt, appropriate, and altogether grammatically correct!! Something the other path is not. By discovering this factor we know for sure which path we must follow.
The arguments over Antiochus which have raged over the centuries are really just a red herring:- far better to discover the grammatical logic for our decision than to argue pointlessly about the validity of some individual who happens to be somewhere near our track.
As the Administrator has stated, it is our duty to teach with all long suffering and patience as becomes saints. The reason I had held back with this gem was because I had expected Mr. Gillespie to present it, and I did not intend to rain on his parade.
The man who thinks that Antiochus is meant in those passages must needs follow the path named "horns" which is grammatically off the planet because it is masculine and does not jibe in that setting.
If you care to think about it, the directions Antiochus followed are not the same as the prophecy, and the originator of that theory either had a problem with languages or knew that others wouldn't even notice the difference. That is why Jesus warned:- "Be not deceived."
Joined: 13 Jun 2003 Posts: 60 Location: Madrid, Spain
Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2004 5:28 pm Post subject: Good try. Better luck next time
Dear Ross,
I had read part of this explanation in a communication of yours, made in Jail, to Mr. Gillespie. Although not knowing Hebrew is most certainly not a crime, it seems to me that you have failed to understand the principles involved in the questions of gender in the passage of Dan.8:8,9. The following is a literal translation (in very bad English):
And came up [plural, feminine] notable [singular, feminine] four in its place [feminine] toward four winds [feminine] of the heavens [feminine]. And from one [feminine] of them [masculine; there are textual variants where 'them' is also feminine] came [masculine] horn [feminine] one [feminine] little [feminine].
As you can see, the very text we're considering is ample proof in itself of what the best Hebrew grammars proclaim: in that ancient language, gender agreement is not always to be expected. Notice, in particular, the presence of the subject "one little horn," three feminine words, preceded by the masculine verb "came." This alone is lethal for your thesis. I guess this must be more shocking news for you, but I assure you I'm not responsible for it. That's the way it was written some 25 centuries ago. Anyway, you could have inferred as much had you pondered these words of mine, written several weeks ago:
Quote:
The worst [of the historicist interpretation of Daniel], however, is not the historical distortion involved by such absurd tenacity in error, but the mockery that is done of Bible studies themselves by resorting to fallacious arguments on linguistics and similar things. As an illustration, let me just finish with a few words on the contention that the Little Horn was to appear out of one of the four winds of heaven, a hypothesis defended by William Shea. Those who claim such a thing play with the gender of certain Hebrew words. They affirm that since ‘them’ is masculine and ‘horns’ is feminine, whereas ‘winds’ is sometimes masculine (not in the passage, though), ‘from one of them’ must mean ‘from one of the winds’. It is curious that this explanation gives an unexpected twist to the angelic interpretation and to the universal consensus of all ancient translations. Besides, it ignores the fact that some Hebrew manuscripts have the word ‘them’ in feminine. But, even if that wasn’t the case, the proponents of this ignore the fact, shown elsewhere in the very context we are considering, that Hebrew does not always conform with grammatical gender agreement. See E. Kautzsch, editor, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, 2nd edition, 17th printing, translated by A. E. Cowley, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1983, §§ 110 k, 144 a, 145 p, t, u, 135 o.
So, you see, maintaining that the Little Horn came out of one of the winds of heaven is not the oldest interpretation. As far as I know, it has only been maintained in the last few decades. It is a well documented fact that nearly all scholars of all ages, since at least the days of Flavius Josephus, have understood that the Little Horn came out of the divisions of Alexander's empire, as implied in the angelic explanation of the vision, and as amplified in the more detailed explanations of the parallel passages in chapter 11. Doubts exist as to whether exceptions to this universal rule can be considered scholars at all. If there ever was an originator of the view that the Little Horn came from the he-goat empire other than Daniel, he surely knew Hebrew better than any of us. Even if you claim that the originator was Josephus, he was a highly educated Jew who could read Hebrew perfectly.
Therefore, you are completely mistaken: the fact that "'Winds' is feminine" does not lead to any "apt, appropriate, and altogether grammatically correct" "path". This "gem" of yours is made of cardboard. There's no value whatever in it, I'm afraid. Besides, the directions of which you speak coincide precisely with Antiochus's territorial gains, not with Rome's. Everything in the Rome identification is pure fraud., whereas Antiochus's career fits precisely the angelic specifications of chapters 11 and 8. And, quite certainly, what is said in chapters 9, 7 and 2 does not contradict in any fundamental way the fuller details of 11 and 8.
So, your contention that "'horns' ... is grammatically off the planet because it is masculine and does not jibe in that setting" is absolutely wrong. All the evidence I've presented entirely pulverizes your argument. Therefore, I'll do well to heed Jesus's warning about the future appearance of promotors of error in order not to be deceived by people who confidently state things contrary to the Word of God.
The reality is that there aren't two paths at all. There's only one, and it's always been called "horns". Certain people willing to read something in God's Word that is not there have rather invented a fictitious byway which exists only in their minds in order to uphold a cherished myth. Antiochus is not just "some individual who happens to be somewhere near our track". He was an evil individual who fulfilled Daniel's predictions very precisely, as an even cursory look at the SDA Bible Commentary for Daniel 11 will reveal (yes, there were some honest SDA scholars back then).
In any case, Dan.8:8,9 is not central to my questions. It's only a mere excuse used by some historicists as a last-ditch attempt to cling to error. If you think I've gone against objective evidence, show how and where. In any case, as I stated before, I admit the possibility that I might be mistaken (and I'm the only one who has admitted such a thing), so what I may think about Antiochus is not very important. My offer stands: I'll recant my criticisms of SDA "orthodoxy" if my questions are answered. So, get down to answering them, one at a time if you will. That's what you really need to address if you are as sincere as you claim at the close of your letters.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in
