The Plagiarism Charge Refuted: A Response to "Testing the Adventist Prophet" - Part 2
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 сен 2024
- This next video finalizes what we call the "Laying the Foundation" aspect of our series. Here, Pastor Morgan discusses various important details that seemed to have been missed by the creator of "Testing the Adventist Prophet." According to Morgan's research, there are many reasons for not supplying the names of sources, including, but not limited to, the following:
1. Authors in those days believed that a "well-versed reader" would recognize where those sources came from, without being told.
2. To avoid pedantry, which means to inappropriately show off what you know. According to vocabulary.com, pedantry refers to someone who "seems to brag, using his or her knowledge to get attention or seem better educated than the people around him or her."
3. To avoid making the authority of the prophetic gift to be degraded to a "common authorship (see quote from Fannie Bolton).
4. To show that the truth can speak for itself, rather then because so and so taught it. Pastor Morgan quotes John Wesley and William Hanna making this same point.
Our remaining videos will get more specific. We will be dealing head-on with the specific accusations made by the creator of "Testing the Adventist Prophet." Please share this video around, and feel free to comment respectfully, after watching the entire episode of course!
Enjoy :)
___________________________________________________________________
REFUTATIONS BY PASTOR KEVIN MORGAN:
Chapter 7 of White Lie Soap: Affirming Ellen White's Integrity, by Pastor Kevin Morgan
www.academia.e...
Chapter 8 of White Lie Soap: Cleaning Up the Friendly Fire, by Pastor Kevin Morgan
www.academia.e...
Plagiarism: A Historical and Cultural Survey, by Pastor Kevin Morgan
www.ministryma...
Was Ellen White a Plagiarist? by Pastor Kevin Morgan
www.ministryma...
Please see our Introduction video for more resources.
__________________________________________________
The Advent Defense League is dedicated to providing sound refutations of arguments against biblical truths which Adventists hold dear through articles, books, social media and videos. We also provide training in apologetics. Visit our website: adventistdefen.... To train in apologetics, join our apologetics training club at: / adventistdefenseleague
CREDITS
_Pastor Kevin Morgan, author of White Lie Soap.
_Tim Poirier, Vice-Director of the White Estate Inc.
_THE CONFLICT BEAUTIFUL podcast.
_Edwin M. Cotto, Director of the Advent Defense League.
_Arnold Famini, video editor for the Advent Defense League
_Mixkit.co
_Bensounds.com
You cannot use the lies from a plagiarizing author to defend or to make sense of any truth from the said authors own confession. She has dug her own grave with her own pen from her uninspired mind. This said author has consistently lied on God.
She said the blood of Christ did NOT cancel sin….. pause and think! That statement is not from God.
See below:
CONTRADICTION:
"The blood of Christ, while it was to release the repentant sinner from the condemnation of the law, was Not to cancel sin ... it will stand in the sanctuary until the final atonement" (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 357).
BIBLE: But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. I John 1:7
1 John 1:9
If you confess your sins HE is FAITHFUL and JUST to forgive and CLEANSE (G2511. Katharizo) which means to REMOVE, purify, consecrate, make clean… etc.
Thank God for His Word!!
I'd be happy to discuss any other topic after you address the topic of this video. Why critics cannot stay on the topic of the videos they comment on, is beyond me.
Let me ask you, did you fully watch this video before even commenting? If so, you should be able to point something out you disagree with, for us to discuss, instead of going off topic to other areas. Let's see, what in this video do you disagree with? Point it out, give your reasons, and let's have a real discussion instead of trying to force me to deal with arbitrary arguments here and there.
You are absolutely right in what you have stated.
I realize that people often use a video to vent their frustrations, but, for this to be instructive to others, would you mind pointing to something specific in the video that we can respond to? Thanks.
@@AdventDefenseLeague you practice obscurantism at its best. You should be able to defend from all angles whether it’s on the topic of the video or not. Aren’t you the defense league? We have done our studies on the history of this denomination and the personality and characteristics of these pioneers. They were young and didn’t know how to exegete scripture, they didn’t know Greek Or Hebrew. They misinterpreted scriptures they added and took away from the scriptures. EGW, had a huge vast library from which she got many of her ideas. She was not able to integrate her work thus it appears confusing saying one thing here and then the opposite over there. Her books were plagiarized to hasten production for sales. The Whites were a business entity that lied and cheated and kept people under the old covenant to keep the tithe rolling in on the expense of old covenant commands of guilt and curses if you don’t pay. Unbiblical theories used to entice and assist fraudulent activities. Y’all know we are not under the old covenant but under the NEW. Hebrews 10:8,9. Hebrews 8:13. There is no tithe paying but a free will offering, it’s sad that this fraudulent behavior continues in this denomination. It’s a shame that you still don’t know how to exegete the scriptures, to reveal the truth of Gods word.
Ellen is not a biblical religion. She didn’t even understand what happened on the cross. Thus creating two Atonement’s. 🧐😳
@@Dr.Ez.ANewLivingWay I noticed that you did not answer my question. I asked you, did you fully watch this video, the one you are commenting on, YES or NO? Well? If you watched it, where in THIS video which WE made, did we go wrong?
If you want to believe I am obfuscating by asking critics to be mindful of my time, so be it. I'm never concerned about a critic's characterization of me. I'm concerned with real conversations. I am not interested in frivolous back and forths on any topic nor am I concerned with entertaining a critic's venting of their frustrations. Time is short and my time is especially precious. Just because this is the "defense league" does not reasonably follow that I have to sit here and respond to every critic and their constant complaints about everything Adventism. You want to talk? Let's stay on topic here. I made these videos and take full responsibility for them. If I made an error in this video you need to just tell me and stop with the venting and complaining about every little thing EGW and the church did or that I'm doing here. Respectfully, if you wont do that, feel free to vent elsewhere.
Now, WHAT is wrong with the information in THIS video? Assuming you watched it before commenting.
My wife knew when she was presented Ellen Whites book early writings she was reading Paradise Lost by John Milton. It doesn't take a great scholar to find copying
Did she think she was reading Isaiah 2 when she read Micah 4? The similarities there doesn't constitute plagiarism or anything devious. The church already determined innocence through unbiased legal sources. Please watch the video.
@@AdventDefenseLeagueunbiased legal sources? The attorney they paid to come to their conclusion? It’s not even so much a legal issue as it is an ethical one: when you copy from somebody else’s work, and you don’t cite your sources you don’t give credit to the original author, you publish those works under your own name and claim that they do not come from any human sources, but were revealed to you and divine visions and revelations from God, you are a lying witch.
@@AdventDefenseLeague Did John Milton claim that The Holy Spirit was the author of Paradise Lost?
Anybody familiar with the facts knows that the amount of spin and smoke and mirrors in this video is off the charts.
Well that's just your opinion. We know of others who have investigated the facts and came to a different conclusion than you have. Some of them not even Adventists.
For me it’s not so much the plagiarism aspect ,who cares if she borrowed from other writers , but how do you reconcile when you claim a direct revelation of God pertaining to a specific group of people , and that being copied word for word from another author, trust me brother I want to believe that she has the authority to guide the end time church but this is a very big concern to me.
Did you know that the book of Revelation quotes heavily either directly or indirectly from nearly a dozen Old Testament books with not a single citation? John was a "prophet." Why is it an issue when she does what he did?
Isaiah copied some things word for word from Micah (or it may be the other way around), and yet no citation. Why is it a problem when we test her acts and discover that their acts are the same? Why is she wrong, but they're not wrong?
See, we believe God is the author of those words, and where ever they are located, if they are true, it is His, as He is the author of truth. So, we see no guilt of plagiarism with Isaiah or John, or Luke or Solomon who did the same things. Likewise, we see no guilt with her either.
But you are still free to believe she's guilty.
Facts. “Thus sayeth the Lord” makes a mockery outta the Lord when He didn’t even say any of it.
@@AdventDefenseLeague Are you comparing Isaiah, John, Luke, and Solomon to writers like John Milton?
@@davidfarr1976😅 i'd like to know the same.
I think my real issue is that Ive read some of EGW words and ive had a hard time understanding, or I feel as if it speaks against me. Ive only read short excerpts about things like Marital excess, the amalgamation of man in certain races... Im still studying. I found you all after Test the Prophet and Answering adventistism, so its so good to hear some real reasons that support Adventism
Non of the authors cited so far claimed to be a prophet.
Why at the 1919 bible conference the church than decided, not to inform the church members that she used sources,
The book on the life of Paul, ctied the enter outline of the book.
So Prophets in the Bible did not plagiarise?
Do you know what plagiarism is?
And do you know how the bible books were written?
Plagiarism is a crime, and are you claiming the bible writers were thefts.
Thank you. God is love.
If it's really true that Bible writers plagiarized, then it brings the whole Christian belief system into question.
They didn't plagiarize. That's the point. Critics have no clue what plagiarism actually is.
@@AdventDefenseLeague may you please define plagiarism
@@henryhondo8421the point is, if you take the logic used to attack Ellen g white and don’t pick and choose where you apply it, and apply the same logic to the Bible… what do you think happens if Paul is saying stuff close to what previous Greek philosophers might’ve said… or mentions stuff written by them. essentially they are trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. If you write any paper on the resurrection at this point… put it into a plagiarism finder… I’m sure you’ll be a plagiarist… there’s only so many ways to write about the subject your bound to agree with other people, but it doesn’t mean your stealing they’re ideas. It just goes into thought inspiration vs word inspiration. Adventists don’t hold to word inspiration even tho it’s a common misconception. For example if you ask lay members in a regular non denom church what the trinity is, they’ll probably give you a version of it that’s modalism. There’s a good book on this subject
Defending the spirit of prophecy: Vance Ferrell
I appreciate Pastor Morgan ending on such a note as it makes for easy discussion. The question is why do we hold Ellen White to a different standard than biblical writers? Frankly, it’s because of her own testimony. To claim to be God’s messenger and that her words are her own (as she frequently writes), it puts into question the degree of her inspiration when she adapts the words of others. If she is merely a mirror for other contemporary writers, she is offering no new light of herself and her position as prophet comes into question. Her correction on doctrine and her authority become that of Sproul and Spurgeon-certainly lead by God, but not receiving new, special revelation from Him and CERTAINLY not to be held to such a high extent as we are doing so now in the SDA church. On the contrary, because her ministry does not exist in a vacuum, we find many predictions made by her that have proven to be outright false, compared to that of the biblical prophets that either have been fulfilled (preterist) or yet to be (historicist/futurist). Either way, no biblical prophet has been definitively proven wrong as Ellen White has when she said that some of those alive in her time would not pass away before the return of Christ.
Unfortunately any prophecy made by her that has not come to pass will simply be brushed away by the "conditional" argument. It didn't happen because it was conditional. Examples will be given like that of Jonah and other bible prophets. I've noticed Mormon Scholarship uses the same tactics when defending the false prophecies of Joseph Smith. This way any prophecies which fail can be taken off the table and not considered as disqualifications of the prophet. Bible prophets also had prophecies which did not happen. So why not Ellen White?
And when she selects and adapts the wording of others, those words ARE her own--they didn't come by dictation, as she pointed out. In this statement, she is responding to the notion that her writings came through direct dictation from God, a notion that both critic and supporter alike may misconstrue because they have a very different understanding of inspiration. As she described biblical inspiration in her diary of 1886, it is not the words that are inspired but the THOUGHTS: "It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired. Inspiration acts not on the man’s words or his expressions but on the man himself, who, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, is imbued with thoughts." The writer is left to put God's thoughts into words, and that is why each Bible writer delivers the message in different vocabulary--even if, as Solomon overtly declared, the writer searches out to find thought gems and the best words to deliver God's message (see Eccles. 12:9, 10).
@@kevinmorgan_truth As she described biblical inspiration in her diary of 1886, it is not the words that are inspired but the THOUGHTS: "It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired"
Even her defense of the charges she used a plagiarised material from C. E. Stowe. It is practically impossible to have thoughts inspired without words, they go together. You cannot separate words from thoughts. Here is the classic example of her copying: Objections to the Bible, Ms 24, 1886,The Common Popular Objections to the Bible at the present day, copied from Calvin Ellis Stowe, “Origin and history of the books of the New Testament”, 1867
Thankyou Derrick Hubbard you are on point that’s the truth.
What is the definition of stealing?
You failed to do your research. There are several occasions in her plagerized writings where EGW actually claims she received something in vision that was directly plagerized. She also made statements that everything she wrote was true and directly inspired by God. By plagerizing and not giving credit to her sources, she is in fact lying about the source of her inspiration. Ou can't wist ourself into a pretzel trying to explain away or justify her "literary borrowing" but the fact remains she was trying to pass off other people's work as her own original thoughts and ideas and is a liar. And by not giving credit to all the stuff she copied she is deceiving, either directly or indirectly, the reader into thinking the ideas are her own or inspired by God which is absolutely not the case. Just saying she never stated that all ideas are her own is a bald face lie as there are many quotes where she says exactly that and that to question anything she wrote was questioning God. That I'd how she keeps anyone in the SDA church from acknowled8ng the pagerism and decei she perpetrated and SDA "scholars" and apologists then have to lie to mane her deceit not seem Mike what it is. EGW used the exact same tactic as Joseph Smith. I came out of mormonism and can say that she even copied from false prophet Joseph Smith and her vision of heaven is almost exactly the same as a vision recorded by Joseph Smith that predates her " vision" and she even copied s9me of the very same false doctrines of the LDS church. I pray that God takes the blinders and scales from your eyes so you can see how deceived you and everyone in the SDA church is about EGW. She is a provably false prophet and has copied many of the core doctrine of the SDA church from men who later denounced these false doctrines. It is painful to watch so called scholars twist themselves. 8nto knots trying to justify and defend what is so obviously and provably false.
A colleague who does not share my view of Ellen White's giftedness, sent me a thoughtful private message, noting that he thought there was nothing new in this presentation. To which I replied: "No one that I know has linked all of her uses of sources to W.C. White's frank comments, and no one has ever described her use of 'storyline guides,' so I think you missed some of the new."
He also noted that my explanation about Ellen White's gathering of thought gems was not convincing to him. To which I replied: "Adapting good wording from others is what preachers and poets do all the time. Somehow, you don't think that is acceptable for prophets--even though we know that the biblical prophets did the same thing." In fact, Solomon declares that he did so.
He also called my attention to James White's statement (written in 1880): "Mrs. W. has written and spoken a hundred things, as truthful as they are beautiful and harmonious, which cannot be found in the writings of others, they are new to the most intelligent readers and hearers. And if they are not to be found in print, and are not brought out in sermons from the pulpit, where did Mrs. W. find them? From what source has she received the new and rich thoughts which are to be found in her writings and oral addresses? She could not have learned them from books, from the fact that they do not contain such thoughts. And, certainly, she did not learn them from those ministers who had not thought of them" (James White, Life Sketches p. 328). To which I replied: "James didn't claim that she never borrowed from others. You need to look more carefully at his statement." I would add that a careful comparison of her writings before James White's death in 1881 shows far fewer adapted thought gems, so certainly there were at least "a hundred things" in her extemporaneous sermons that were not adapted from others. Here is the literary indebtedness in her books, in chronological order prior to 1881:
Experience and Views and Supplement (1851/1854) 0.14%
Testimonies for the Church, volume 1 (1855-1868) 0.60%
Testimonies for the Church, volume 2 (1868-1871) 0.20%
Testimonies for the Church, volume 3 (1872-1875) 0.96%
Testimonies for the Church, volume 4 (1876-1881) 1.88%
Kevin I feel that I am under the same impression as your colleague in that at this point I'm not sure anything substantial can be added to the work done by men such as F. D Nichols in "Ellen White and her critics". It would certainly make for deeper discussion if critics were aware of some these sources. But I appreciate the effort and work done by you and others to present the case as best as can be done. It helps individuals such as I, to make the most informed decision in staying or leaving Adventism. In my case, the latter.
I find your response to your colleague to the James White statement to be a bit odd. You said, "To which I replied: "James didn't claim that she never borrowed from others. You need to look more carefully at his statement." In looking more carefully at his statement it does seem that is exactly what James is claiming. About a paragraph from the quoted statement, James says,
"Does unbelief suggest that what she writes in her personal testimonies has been learned from others? We inquire, What time has she had to learn all these facts? and who for a moment can regard her as a Christian woman, if she gives her ear to gossip, then writes it out as a vision from God? And where is the person of superior natural and acquired abilities who could listen to the description of one, two, or three thousand cases, all differing, and then write them out without getting them confused, laying the whole work liable to a thousand contradictions? If Mrs. W. has gathered the facts from a human mind in a single case, she has in thousands of cases, and God has not shown her these things which she has written in these personal testimonies." p 328.
It seems to me that James was absolutely convinced that Ellen White did not gather any facts from any human mind even in a single case. Given that this was written 1 year before his death I figure James believed to his death that Ellen never borrowed from anyone. At least that's what he defended in publication.
I also figure that Adventist apologetics wouldn't agree with James argument as can be seen in this video. You argue the exact opposite. She took gems from here and there "dug out from the rubbish of superstition and error." I wonder if this would have been evidence to James that God had not shown her such things.
@@DanielnKitavi Perhaps you aren't understanding the point he is making here. He isn't saying that she didn't gather words from anyone else. He is talking about the FACTS of the case to which she is offering counsel that she received in vision. So, here he is talking about the testimonies she wrote, rather than her books on health or on the great controversy. I hope that helps.
@@kevinmorgan_truth That's what I understood he was saying. If Ellen got info from others about specific cases of people and wrote to them saying she got a vision then that would be problematic. His argument is two-fold. Point 3 deals with the personal testimonies, point 4 deals with general publication. but he's making the same argument. this can be seen by the similarities in both points. Notice the parallels.
point 3: "if she gives her ear to gossip, then writes it out as a vision from God"
point 4: "has learned these things of others, and has palmed them off as visions from God"
The idea is the same in both points. The things that Ellen White has written whether in personal testimonies or published material does not come from others. That is James argument. The visions that she received from God here are not restricted to just personal testimonies but includes published material. Even if we treat them separately, James would at least be saying that Ellen did not borrow anything in her visions. Her borrowing was only limited to that which was not "visions from God." But that would be false. Even her visions contain borrowed material.
@@DanielnKitavi Let's take statement 4 point by point.
a. "In her published works there are MANY THINGS set forth which cannot be found in other books, and yet they are so clear and beautiful that the unprejudiced mind grasps them at once as truth."
He does NOT say that it is everything, but "many things." To say that it is EVERYTHING in her published works is to turn a true statement into a lie--and the lie would be in twisting his statement and not in what he actually wrote.
b. "A doctor of divinity once heard Mrs. W. speak upon her favorite theme, God in Nature. She dwelt largely upon the life and teachings of Christ. This Christian gentleman was instructed and highly edified; and at the close of the discourse, in private conversation, addressed her in these words: 'Sister White, while you were speaking, I have been asking myself the question, Why is it that none of us have thought of these precious things which you have brought out this morning?' "
Here he is talking about a specific subject--her public speaking about Jesus' teaching on "God in Nature"--and the response of a well-read Christian gentleman who was blessed by what she said.
c. "If commentators and theological writers generally had seen these gems of thought which strike the mind so forcibly, and had they been brought out in print, all the ministers in the land could have read them."
This statement is a comment on the observation of the Christian gentleman. To amplify it to cover everything she would ever write long after James White's death in 1881, misconstrues the context.
d. "These men gather thoughts from books, and as Mrs. W. has written and spoken A HUNDRED THINGS, as truthful as they are beautiful and harmonious, which cannot be found in the writings of others, they are new to the most intelligent readers and hearers."
It is certainly true that she has SPOKEN 100 things that are beautiful and harmonious that cannot be found in the writings of others. In Early Writings, for example, there are only a couple of points out of all the points in her book that parallel a previously written book. "It was only the similar material in her first vision and Foy’s account-the lines about the glittering hinges on the top of p 17 and about not eating the fruit on the bottom of p. 19 and top of 20-compared with Foy’s pamphlet pp 10, 15" (Tim Poirier to Kevin Morgan, April 26, 2022). And, in this case, Foy was excited that she had had a vision like his. So, would we not rightfully expect that there would be overlapping descriptions?
e. "And if they are not to be found in print, and are not brought out in sermons from the pulpit, where did Mrs. W. find them? From what source has she received the new and rich thoughts which are to be found in her writings and oral addresses? She could not have learned them from books, from the fact that they do not contain such thoughts. And, certainly, she did not learn them from those ministers who had not thought of them" (James White, Life Sketches p. 328).
Taken in context, we CANNOT honestly make this a blanket statement about EVERYTHING she ever HAD WRITTEN or ever WOULD WRITE. To do so is to misconstrue his statement. "Many things" and "One hundred things" are not ALL things.
@@DanielnKitavi Statement 3 does deal with how she delivers testimonies, where the facts came from, and where her insight about each case came from. So, this statement is very specific about what it defines.
"Does unbelief suggest that what she writes in her personal testimonies has been learned from others? We inquire, What time has she had to learn all these facts? and who for a moment can regard her as a Christian woman, if she gives her ear to gossip, then writes it out as a vision from God? And where is the person of superior natural and acquired abilities who could listen to the description of one, two, or three thousand cases, all differing, and then write them out without getting them confused, laying the whole work liable to a thousand contradictions? If Mrs. W. has gathered the facts from a human mind in a single case, she has in thousands of cases, and God has not shown her these things which she has written in these personal testimonies.
Stealing among prophets condemned: Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, saith the Lord, that steal my words every one from his neighbour. -- Jeremiah 23:30.
God's law condemns stealing, which applies to everything: Thou shalt not steal.
What Ellen White said about stealing, and whether she practiced what she preached:
“The eighth commandment is to barricade the soul, and hedge man in, so that he shall make no injurious encroachment - which his self love and desire for gain would make - from his neighbor’s rights. It forbids every species of dishonesty, injustice, or fraud, however prevalent, however palliated by plausible pretenses. The ninth commandment requires of us an inviolable regard for exact truth in every declaration by which the character of our fellow men may be affected. The tongue which is kept so little under the control of human agent is to be bridled by strong conscientious principles, by the law of love toward God and man. The last commandment condemns covetousness. Every selfish desire, every degree of discontent, every act of over-reaching, every selfish gratification works to the strengthening and developing of a character which will destroy the Christlikeness of the human agent, and close the gates of the city of God against him” (Lt15, 1895.19, 20).
“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”
False speaking in any matter, every attempt or purpose to deceive our neighbor, is here included. An intention to deceive is what constitutes falsehood. By a glance of the eye, a motion of the hand, an expression of the countenance, a falsehood may be told as effectually as by words. All intentional overstatement, every hint or insinuation calculated to convey an erroneous or exaggerated impression, even the statement of facts in such a manner as to mislead, is falsehood. This precept forbids every effort to injure our neighbor’s reputation by misrepresentation or evil surmising, by slander or tale bearing. Even the intentional suppression of truth, by which injury may result to others, is a violation of the ninth commandment” (PP, p. 309, 1890).
Covetousness:
“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor’s.”
“The tenth commandment strikes at the very root of all sins, prohibiting the selfish desire, from which springs the sinful act. He who in obedience to God’s law refrains from indulging even a sinful desire for that which belongs to another will not be guilty of an act of wrong toward his fellow creatures” (PP, p. 309, 1890).
A man who will overreach his neighbor on a small scale:
“A man who will overreach his neighbor on a small scale will overreach in a larger scale if the temptation is brought to bear upon him. A false representation in a small matter is as much dishonesty in the sight of God as falsity in a larger matter” (Lt3, 1878.8).
Willful violation of one of His commands:
“While they refuse to believe and obey some requirement of the Lord, they persevere in offering up to God their formal services of religion. There is no response of the Spirit of God to such service. No matter how zealous men may be in their observance of religious ceremonies, the Lord cannot accept them if they persist in willful violation of one of His commands” (Patriarchs and Prophets, 631, 634, 1890; Conflict and Courage, p. 158, 1970).
“Oh, that a right impression be made upon the minds of young and old in regard to the exceeding sinfulness of sin! … The word of truth declares, “Be sure your sin will find you out” (RH, march 27, 1888).
Good counsel but hardly practiced by the preacher.
Hi again. Please try not to overwhelm the comments with paragraphs of text in order to have a more productive conversation. More content does not prove you're right. Two things:
1. Did you watch this video in full? For some odd reason, croutons feel an urge to express their grievances on these videos without ever responding to the contents of the actual video. If you did watch it, it will be more productive to answer questions about it. So, what in THIS video which WE have said and done do you disagree with?
2. You quoted Jeremiah. Did you know that Jeremiah contains many borrowed materials from other authors also, without giving credit? In this case I think you are misreading Jeremiah and you are still demonstrating that you do not know how inspiration actually works. He is not condemning himself.
@@AdventDefenseLeague
Your caution about the length of comments should be addressed in general, not to particular individuals.
Neither do short posts prove anything right.
Let participants decide whether or not they read the comments.
Abut Jeremiah, that's my understanding according to the text, if you don't agree, that's your business.
This is a public platform. Don't dictate terms.
Were you aware that Jeremiah is called the "plagiarizing prophet" by some because he used the material of others without giving credit (John Dart's simplistic definition)?
@@kevinmorgan_truth
Only Adventist apologists, in their attempt to justify Ellen White's lifelong plagiarism do that. They even stoop so low to brand Jesus a plagiarist. I am well aware of Adventist theory of inspiration as against the Biblical, which was adapted from Stowe's theory. I don't think you have ever considered Louis Gaussen and Eleazar Lord's Plenary inspiration, I found them in harmony with the Biblical inspiration.
@@19818456 I tell every critic to be reasonable in their posts and mindful of people's time. You aren't the only one. Also, I have a right to dictate whatever I want on my videos here. These are my videos, and we put our time and finances into making them. The ADL is interested in real conversations, not frivolous back and forths especially if it's not on the topic of the video. I realize critics have this intense urge to vent their frustrations everywhere the topic of Adventism appears, but this is not a place for that. So again, I am asking you to kindly stay on the topic of the videos. Otherwise, feel free to go elsewhere.
To all you sincere SDA believers, you need to research the writings and doctrines of Joseph Smith and the LDS church and Jehovah's Witnesses. SDA shares many of the same false doctrines as both LDS and JW. Your apologists and scholars use the exact same arguments to justify your false prophet as both the LDS and JW apologists and scholars and use the exact same arguments to justify their failed prophecies/predictions as SDA uses for EGW. It is startling the similarities and there are many writings between EGW and Joseph Smith that are almost verbatim. How do I know this? I was raised JW and then joined the LD,s church as a young adult and was a .ember many years. Because I was JW I could flip through and quote scripture but my understanding was tainted by false doctrine of men just like SDA and LDS. When you look a scepture ali e without the writings of false prophets a few things happen. Scripture becomes so much more clear and your understanding and ability to share the gospel.becomr so much better. When you realize that even a child can understand the plain and simple truths in the bible that are essential to salvation and that it only becomes complicated and works based when you view it through the lens of false prophets and false manmade doctrines, it is very liberating and you find joy and peace with no spirit of fear. You realize that the apprehension and spirit of fear that you aren't sealed to God disappear and you know that once you are sealed by God that Satan has no power over you. My friend gave me several of EGW's books and when I read some of them, I could immediately see the similar errors between her writings and Joseph Smith and the watchtower society. All promote the same works based righteousness that directly contradicts Jesus and the bible and make Jesus sacrfice not all you need for salvation. It cheapens the blood he shed. Not to mention all the illogical doctrines like the lesser light illuminates and clarifies the greater light, just nonsense. That anything in heaven needs to be cleansed when nothing in heaven has ever been defiled and there is no death in heaven and no sacrificial alter in the beavenly sanctuary which is why Jesus had to become cloth le in a human body to be the sacrifice. Then then there is the investigative judgment doctrine that is no where found in scripture that tries to conflatecthe judgement of the unrighteous and put it on those who have accepted jesus and bern sealed by God. The scape goat doctrine which say s the glawed and blemished Satan is the scapegoat when we know from levitical law the scapegoat has to be without blemish and only jesus fulfills that purity. The conflation of human law (levitical) with God's eternal law (ten commandments) and Jesus' priesthood with the levitical priest priesthood. Jesus has a higher priesthood and was of the line of Judah not Levi. I could go on with all the illogical and blasphemous comparisons SDa make of earthly carnal things to heavenly things because the bible is crystal clear that there is no comparison and false doctrine that you can only arrive at when viewd through the writings of EGW. Without her interpretation of scripture, you simple can't arrive at those erroneous and blasphemous doctrines and that is just a fact.
Your logical fallacy is "Guilt by Association."
Plagiarism doesn't recognize the author. Defending plagiarism is either unwise or evil. I can't copy Psalms or Proverbs or Abraham Lincoln and put my name on what I find valuable.
This was addressed in this three-part video series. Please watch before commenting on something already dealt with.
Material for many of her personal letters, including a letter to O.A.Olsen, and her son were drawn from Cunningham Geikie. The church deliberately calls them inspired!
That sounds interesting. So, was Cunningham Geikie sending spiritual counsel to O. A. Olsen?
@@kevinmorgan_truth
You will be surprised to know the whole book, 'Light from beyond to cheer the Christian Pilgrim' served as the inspired source for her to write out letters, 'thought gems' as you say!
@@kevinmorgan_truth
By the way, Did I say, Geikie was giving counsel to Olsen? You are joking!
@@19818456 She found great thought gems to apply in various situations from many sources. I'll definitely look into it!
@@19818456 My response was an attempt to get you to think.
If you know the Bible, it really doesn’t matter either way.
Hi Pastor. What did you mean by this comment?
@@AdventDefenseLeague was a while back, don’t remember what I was addressing. I would assume it relates to apologetics gymnastics.
I was listening critically, but I think he nailed this one.
Thanks for watching and commenting!
Glad you came. May God bless.
@@kevinmorgan_truth Thank you for what your doing. This two channels on RUclips also criticize and attack Ellen G.White.
1. SDAQ&A - Official RUclips Channel
2. AcademyApologia
@@AdventDefenseLeague Thank you for what your doing. This two channels on RUclips also criticize and attack Ellen G.White.
1. SDAQ&A - Official RUclips Channel
2. AcademyApologia
@@ariovist3420 You are most welcome. When we get finished with this series, we'll take a look at the issues on those other channels.