>Perhaps that is why she never claimed to be a Prophet like Moses.
Not sure what your point is. Are you saying it's okay for a prophet to contradict themselves and the Bible so long as they are not a prophet like Moses?
>There are people who see a lot of contradictions in the Scriptures as well, but a proper understanding demonstrates how both things can be true.
Sure, but when it comes to EGW's contradictions, can you actually demonstrate both are true? For example, she said Moses married an Ethiopian woman in Spiritual Gifts, vol. 4, p. 19, but later wrote "the wife of Moses was a Midianite, and thus a descendant of Abraham" (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 383). It is impossible for both to be true. This is a trivial example but there are many others that cannot both be true.
>Which of Ellen White's dreams was a false prophecy?
How about her dream where she saw all the wicked world as lost? Later she contradicted that dream and said only the people who rejected the Millerite 1844 message were lost. Again, both cannot be true.
Shut Door>I read through some of your very silly observations about Ellen White being a false prophet because she was seen wearing a broach - which by the way was not gold, or precious gems or the kind of jewelry he mentioned, and who said she spent a dime on it ?
She didn't spend a dime on the broach, which is what the article said. It was given to her. And it had "white stones" which were most likely white topaz or moonstone, so it likely did contain gems. Regardless of the cost or quality of the jewelry she wore, she told the church that the "display of jewelry and ornaments of every kind" was not in keeping with the SDA faith. A broach of any kind would fall into that category. Not to mention the gold watch and chain. I don't find it silly at all that she told her church not to wear jewelry but then wore it herself. I find that concerning behavior. That tells me either she did not believe her own testimonies came from God or perhaps she believed she was exempt from the rules she asked others follow.
>And so often, I see you finding fault with the Seventh-day Adventists for things Ellen White may have said or done before there even was a Seventh-day Adventist.
I'm not sure what you're saying. Are we to ignore EGW's statements prior to 1863 because the Whites had not incorporated the church yet?
>I see no contradiction at all in any of the statements you listed about the nature of Christ that are not easily reconciled by the fact that the nature of mankind He accepted for us, was sinless.
If it's so easily reconciled, then why have SDA's been battling over it for decades? If Christ received a sinless nature (pre-Adam), then how do you reconcile this statement: "He took upon Himself fallen, suffering human nature, degraded and defiled by sin"?
>Tithe - ? At a time when certain denominational workers were being inadequately sustained or deprived outright of legitimate salaries, Ellen White acted upon instruction she received from the Lord that she should assist such workers with her own tithe funds, if necessary. She did not regard her action as either the withholding of tithe funds from the treasury or the redirection of them to unauthorized uses. Rather she recognized the inability of the "regular channels" to meet the needs of those particular workers at that point in time.
Yes, she had her reasons, but then again, other people also had their reasons for redirecting tithe, but she forbid them from doing so. In other words, she did what she forbid others from doing. You can say God told her to do that, but then again, couldn't anyone also say that?
The entire list you made of "contradictions" seems silly to me.
If I told you I was born in Berrien Springs, Michigan, and then a year later told you I was born in Loma Linda, California, then you would know that either one or both statements was untrue. You may say that's silly, it really doesn't matter where I was born, but here's why it matters. It means I told you something untrue on at least one occasion. Therefore, you can no longer trust what I say. This is the problem with EGW's contradictions. She contradicted herself, the Bible, and known scientific facts. Therefore, we know that some of her statements are untrue. God is not the source of falsehood, so He cannot be the source of ALL of her writings. Now we have to pick and choose which writings are true and which are not, but she told her followers not to pick and choose which testimonies to believe. So her contradictions are actually problematic, which is why the White Estate and others spend so much time and effort trying to explain them away.
Brother Anderson, moderator,
www.nonegw.org