Do We Really Have the Freedom to Choose?

(Harry Allen) #247

Thanks, @georgetichy.

You said:

In response:

I agree with you, @GeorgeTichy.

However, this conversation has not only been going in circles for weeks, but, as a non-white person, I’ve been having it all of my life.

This circular quality, I’d urge, is mostly due to the fact that, almost without fail, white people I meet tell me that:

a) racism does not exist,

b) racism was bad, but it’s getting better,

c) racism happens when Black people bring up racism,

d) I shouldn’t talk so much about racism,

etc., etc.

So, I end up having the same conversations over and over and over, again.

White people don’t have to think about racism, because they have Black people to do that for them. Many white people choose when they want to talk, or even consider race. Indeed, what many do, I’ve found, is leave the entire mess of racism for non-white people to deal with.

I’ve found this to be the case in, for example, Brazil, where the racists have created a highly attenuated system of racial classification, based on the slimmest differences in brown shade; race as a hyper-abstraction.

As for the intellectual quality of the conversation, I absolutely agree that it’s poor. As you know, philosophers talk about the noetic effect of sin; that sin affects even our ability to think, correctly, about sin.

In a similar sense, I’d urge there is a noesis to racism, too, especially for the victims of it. Racism has affected my ability to coherently talk about racism, I’d argue. As a mistreated, undereducated, impoverished victim of the race system, I’m not surprised that what I say sounds like nonsense. Indeed, I typically do these dialogues mostly as a way of talking to other non-white people as third parties, and making suggestions on how they might respond to questions and statements about race. So, I’m trying to contain it to them.

Indeed, one of the most common outcomes of doing this is what you’ve just done: A white person tells a non-white person that they are doing it all wrong; that their ideas are inferior and a waste of time.

In other words, what white people often do in these instances is make fun of non-white people. They say, “Your words are despicable!” But they do not offer assistance. They just belittle the people who are victims of the system from which they, more than likely, benefit. (I’m not saying that you do this.)

My statements are about a) what racism is, and b) how non-white people should respond to it. This is an open forum, yes? If you’ve got better ideas, why don’t you 1) correct mine, and 2) share yours, which are, no doubt, superior?


(Harry Allen) #248

Thanks, @GeorgeTichy.

You said:

In response:

Yet, you have.

You said:

In response:

I think you meant “though,” not “thought.”

If so:

Racism is white supremacy. I consider this a fairly uncontroversial statement. You’re welcome to repel it, of course, much as @ajshep has tried, though he’s usually tried by twisting what I’ve said. :slight_smile:

Racism is also dominant, over other systems of thought, speech, and/or action. This means that there is no system of economics, education, entertainment, labor, law, politics, religion, sex, and/or war in which non-white people are not dominated by white people.

Put another way—and in a manner with which non-white people will be extremely familiar—there is no system of thought, speech, or action in which non-white people can engage, where, if they are being truthful, they will probably not have to ask questions like, “I wonder how this affects me as a Black person?”

In other words, when I say racism is dominant, what I am saying is that there is no system of thought, speech, or action, over which:

a) a non-white person may not be overruled


b) white people do not have the last word.

This is what I mean when I say that only white people can practice racism.

Now, again, I hold the above to be true. It may not be. You are welcome to repel it.

But, if it is true, then if follows, given the tacky, trashy, and terroristic effects of race on non-white people, that any non-white person “be free to” suspect any white person they see, meet, or encounter of being a racist; i.e., or practicing white supremacy.

I would call this “due diligence,” in other words. I would call it a sensible, even deferential position, relative to the facts.

By this, I don’t mean that Black people should call that white person a racist, or should spread the word to other non-white people that that white person is a racist, etc. I don’t mean that they shouldn’t be friendly. It just calls for a reasonable suspicion.

Indeed, more often than not, what happens is that non-white people don’t do this. They do what white people tell them to do, which usually ends up being something like, “Consider all people as the same until they prove otherwise.” Then, inevitably, it seems, the white person says or does something that makes the Black person mournfully say, “I was shocked. I never knew Jim was like that.”

Let me give another example:

It’s reasonable, given the dominance and nature of sin, to consider any person you meet a sinner. Indeed, if the Bible had never been written, one could say that it would be reasonable, given these conditions, to suspect any person of being a sinner.

Had the Bible never been written, and I said, “I suspect any person I meet of sinning,” I’d also suspect that those who’d protest that statement the most are the ones guiltiest of sin. Meanwhile, I’d also suspect that those who heard my words, and received them, “hand clutched to breast,” without protest, might be the ones closest to addressing the sin problem correctly.

However, there is no “Bible” for racism. Hence, I suspect, for many, especially for many people who are white, my “sickening arguments” sound like “nonsense,” “wasting…time,” and are “intellectually poor.”

You said:

In response:

I don’t know what you mean by “the racist stamp.” It sounds correlative to “the race card,” that being another confusing term that I’ve heard white people frequently use.

What do you mean by “extending the racist stamp”?

You said:

In response:

Please point out the parts that are not rational.

That is, I think we both agree that racism should be eliminated, and that you would not consider this irrational.

If so, then help me improve the logic of what I’m saying, so that we can accomplish the objective we both seek.

You said:

In response:


  1. It may not be meant for you, as I indicated, above, in a previous post; #246.

  2. Non-white people—especially very logically-minded ones, but not only, I’ve noticed—love it.

You said:

In response:



(George Tichy) #249


a) Racism exists and is very real, easy to recognize
b) Racism is better and I don’t think it’s getting better
c) Racism happens when anyone discriminates against others based on race or skin color
d) People can talk about racism as much as they want/need. Only victims of racism can understand their need of talking about it.

Though being born in France, from a Czech family, I was 10 months old when we moved to Brazil, where I lived until I was 39. I am a Brazilian citizen (and US too).Things are MUCH different down there, it’s even difficult for people living in America to understand the balance that settle down in Brazil. Cannot compare the two situations, unless one lived in both places for a long time.

  • First of all, until right now I had no idea that you are a “non-white person.”
  • Second, I didn’t say you are “doing it all wrong; that their ideas are inferior.”
  • Third, yes I said that engaging in a conversation in the same circles with people like Allen is indeed a waste of one’s time and energy.

And yes, I believe that after a couple of times of closing the same cirle you are wasting your time and energy. But, it’s not my business, it was just my input trying to save you time and energy. However, if it is something you enjoy doing, that you need to do, and you feel that it is working for you, hey just ignore what I said and move on with your “conversation” with Allen. Good luck on that!..

Yes, open forum. However, if you argue your case from the podium of defensiveness, and sometimes offensiveness, you burn yourself - and accomplish nothing. I never criticized you, I thought about giving you an input because I know that discussing with Allen may become nonsensical. As it is already for you.

It’s not about better ideas than yours. What are you talking about? And, regarding,

a) I have no reason to “correct you.” I don’t see you doing (saying) anything wrong.

b) When you address someone as you did in the b), you probably should not expect much in return. Your obsession with the word “superior,” and using it as you did, will certainly destroy any conversation - because you declare everyone to be an enemy even without seeing/hearing that person.

I have no further opinions about your dialogue with Allen. Good luck Harry.


This issue is devilishly complex, and it eats my lunch!

Case in point:

Several years ago, I decided, well, I’d just go to the little church where my ex-husband preaches and, you know, let bygones be bygones and…be a Christian…at long last, for heaven’s sake!

Things were going swimmingly for several weeks. The ladies and I really hit it off, long conversations outdoors in the twilight after Prayer Meeting, things like that.

An elderly black lady and I were particularly simpatico, I mean like soul sisters.

She was needing surgery, and asked me to come and be with her, so I did. It was a sweet experience.

In my ignorance, at some point, I gingerly brought up the subject of racism in the Adventist church. She got very angry, and said, “Child, don’t you be telling me stuff like that I don’t need to know! Jesus is enough!”

I felt terrible. I just slunk away from the church and went back to being my reclusive self, not returning calls…just ghosting my friends. I felt terrible about that, too. She gave up trying to contact me.

So, yesterday, she left me a message on my cell phone saying that she needed another surgery, and could I please come be with her?

Well, of course I will. But now I know what not to say.

(Signing off forum for a bit.)


But one thing I do know, Adventist friends: we are treading on Holy Ground here.

Let us be prayerful and mindful. Only God can heal this.

(Signing off the forum for a bit.)

(Steve Mga) #252

Perhaps you discovered there was NO Racism in that SDA church community. And that was
ALL she needed.
She didn’t need to have anxiety over what other SDAs were in to.
It is wonderful that she sees in you a “Soul sister”. “Souls” are colorless and have fun together.


I thought I would try to verify Michelle Alexander’s thesis that racism in the US criminal justice system is driving massive numbers of black incarcerations.

Here are some statistics:
Between 2009 and 2016 there was a 6% drop in the number of people incarcerated in US prisons (with sentences > 1 year). Over that period, the black prison population dropped 17% while the white fell 10%. The Hispanic level remained essentially constant.

Granted the black proportion of prisoners is still significantly higher than in the general population.
Hopefully this trend continues under the current administration.

(Allen Shepherd) #254

The issue of racism is complex.

I think there is black racism, as blacks can hate whites as much as vise versa.

I looked at the video by the comedian about reverse racism. He cites things from 500 to 150 yrs ago, and then assumes that we still act that way. We whites don’t. And if you think that is not the case, look at all the way Starbucks responded to ONE mistake by ONE manager: the whole place is shut down for a day.

I don’t know how you became a “victim of white supremacy”, but you are generalizing to all whites your experience with one, or a group. You can do that, but in the long run, it will only lead frustration on your part and whites disgust. We are not all cut from the same cloth.

(Harry Allen) #255

Thanks, @GeorgeTichy .

You said:

In response:

I agree, obviously, that racism exists.

I don’t necessarily agree that it is very easy to recognize.

I do not, because I see people disagree, all the time, as to whether something is, or is not, racist. For example, see c), below.

You said:

In response:

If by, “Racism is better,” you mean that, “People are less racist than they were,” I would probably say, instead that, “Racism is being refined.”

You said:

In response:

Many white people give this kind of standard, dictionary definition when asked what racism is. I suspect it is either a) to avoid white culpability for race, and/or b) they have no apparent “mechanical” experience with race. So, they say what they think it must be.

It’s akin to defining racism as “a belief in the superiority….” No Black person thinks of racism so weightlessly; as a “belief.”

Racism is white supremacy. White supremacy is the only racism that functions. It’s the only kind with any “heft.” The only kind that “stops traffic.”

A form of racism that Black people and white people could both practice would quickly become incoherent, and decohere. It would become “gray.”

If racism wasn’t white supremacy, what would happen, sometimes, is that white people would raise racism, as a topic of discussion, at inconvenient times, and Black people would go mute, staring into their coffees in silence.

White people would loudly describe atrocities, slights, and indignities, and Black people would after much of this, quietly say, “I feel your pain.” A Black woman would stand and confess the racism in her heart, start crying, and the whole meeting would come to a halt, as white people rushed to hug her.

You’ve never seen this happen. But if racism were something anyone could practice, what I’ve described would happen as often as what actually happens does. Talking about racism at church potlucks would be as uncontroversial as talking about taxes, because everyone would face it.

You said:

In response:

I agree with this statement.

Many, if not most, white people do not.

You said:

In response:

The state of people relations “in” Brazil may be nuanced, perhaps. But they are not incomparable, as you state.

They compare, “in” Brazil, the one way people “in” Biloxi, Bangladesh, and Botswana all recognize: White people dominate non-white people. White people have the last word in all areas on activity.

In other words, are you saying that, in economics, education, entertainment, labor, law, politics, religion, sex, and/or war, “in” Brazil, non-white people dominate white people; i.e., that non-white people make decisions which cannot be overruled by one or more white people?

If you are not saying that, then to say that, “in” Brazil, “Things are MUCH different down there, it’s even difficult for people living in America to understand the balance that settle down “in” Brazil. Cannot compare the two situations, unless one lived in both places for a long time” is not true.

I went “to” Brazil for a very short time, once, and, “in” an overwhelmingly non-white country:

• Almost everyone on TV was white.

• The biggest star, at the time, was a white woman named Xuxa, and when Black children saw her in person, they clung to her like she was an angel; i.e., with the adoration of self-negation.

• In the favelas, I saw brown people, chickens, garbage, and houses that looked like garbage. At the nightclub I went to, where the elite hung out, I heard techno, and saw lots of white people and Mercedes-Benzes.

MUCH Different?

I felt right at home.

You said:

In response:


In post #103, I said, “I am a victim of white supremacy”; i.e., a non-white person.

@Cassie got it, immediately. But, if you did not, or didn’t see it, so be it.

You said:

In response:

I think what you were saying, as I re-read the text, is that a) @ajshep is spouting nonsense, and b) Harry Allen keeps engaging him.

In other words, when I re-read your statements, there is a bit of ambiguity, based on what you wrote, as to who you are criticizing, and for what reason.

You said:

In response:

Thanks for your kind wishes.

In the opening of my response to you, I spoke about the repetitiveness of white statements on race. So, I’m aware that talking on this subject will often be a matter of “going in circles.”

But I do it a) as a testimony, to other non-white people, on how to respond, and b) to build my own ability in addressing white “talking points.”

So, for me, a person who must think about race, continuously—because it continuously thinks about me—this is a form of practice.

You said:

In response:

I don’t know what “the podium of defensiveness, and sometimes offensiveness” is, and I don’t understand your statement.

Please explain, and, if you’re saying that this is what I’m doing, please kindly give examples.

You said:

In response:

I believe you. I think you were criticizing @ajshep, as you’ve often done in this forum.

But because you did not say what you’ve said here—“Harry, I don’t see you doing (saying) anything wrong. Meanwhile @ajshep’s stuff is nonsensical”—but, instead, critiqued our mutual engagement, it appeared that you were criticizing me, also.

I trust that, upon reviewing what you wrote, this has become clear to you.

However, I apologize for misconstruing your intent.

You said:

In response:

Discussing race with @ajshep is circular, because of the way he responds to statements.

However, speaking tutorially, that being part of the reason, again, that I do this work, his speech is not “nonsensical.” I say this, because because I see its circularity as part of the logic of white supremacy.

You said:

In response:

I may have addressed this. If not, I’m about to do so.

You said:

In response:

I don’t have an obsession with the word “superior.” I doubt you’ve seen me use it outside of this sole application.

I don’t have an obsession with the word “supremacy,” either, perhaps that being the word you actually believe I overuse.

However, racism is white supremacy. So, in a discussion about race, the word “supremacy,” or “supreme,” or even “superior,” is bound to be used, often, if the discussion is going to be truthful.

I’m not exactly clear why you say that, “When you address someone as you did in the b), you probably should not expect much in return.”

I am talking about contexts where, as I thought that we were, a white person says, “This stuff you Black people are talking about is a bunch of nonsense. What you really need to do is X”; e.g., “pull yourselves up by your bootstraps”; “stop having so many babies”; “stop blaming racism.”

When I thought that this is what you’d said to me, in #246, I:

a) Immediately spoke to my frailty, at length, and

b) Said I’d welcome what I was sure would be better ideas.

I meant this. I believe that the sum total set of white ideas on how to eliminate white supremacy are better than anything that Black people have put together. I just think that it’s all mish-mashed with a lot of other white stuff, much of which is designed to protect their superior position.

However, you object to the word “superior.” Is the objection akin to telling a model she’s beautiful, or asking a rich person about their money?

Or, is it more that, if I hold that you benefit from a race system, I take it that you’re a “bad person”?

Maybe it’s the latter, because you say, by doing this, I “declare everyone to be an enemy even without seeing/hearing that person.”

To which I say, I do no such thing. Actually, that’s what the race system has done to non-white people, relative to white people. This is why, for example, police killings of unarmed Black people can be rationalized, then dismissed, anywhere.

Race has put white people in a superior position. This is factual. Whether one is an “enemy” or not, of me, depends on what they do about racism.

By analogy: All the people in Christ’s parable of the sheep and the goats are sinners. Yet one group enters heaven, and one doesn’t. It’s not because one group is not racist, and one is. It’s because one recognized their failures and addressed them, while one did not.

I understand that mine, in toto, may be a slightly different way of talking about race to white people. Most of what passes for race relations is Black and white people grinning at each other, uttering platitudes, then singing and praying in a circle, just before they go back to their differences in wealth.

I consider that broken, and long so. Hence.


(Harry Allen) #256

Thanks, @ajshep .

You said:

In response:

I think it is, especially from certain perspectives.

But, I’ve found that things which are complex from one perspective are also, usually, very simple from another perspective.

I like the way one of my mentors speaks about racism, for example: “Anything people do, people can stop doing.”

You said:

In response:

A child may hate an adult as much as an adult hates that child. But the reason the courts will treat the adult more harshly, if the two take their hate to its logical conclusions, is that the adult is in a superior position.

If racism were just a matter of feelings, then I would agree with you. However, what you’re actually saying is that, “People in a superior position can hate as much as people in an inferior one.”


So what? Why is one group in a superior position, and one in an inferior one?

You said:

In response:

Well, in the joke, Aamer takes it as a truism that things white people did “from 500 to 150 yrs ago” had an effect on the modern world; an effect that persists.

Is it your position that that things, white people did, do not have an effect on the modern world; an effect that persists?

If so, please explain.

If not, please explain your objection.

You said:

In response:

“We whites don’t” … what?

You said:

In response:

I’m not clear what this factual example you’ve cited proves.

Would you explicitly state your point, please?

You said:

In response:

Well, what I’ve been told is that, by the time I was born, white people had set up a global race system; one of white supremacy. I was told that they did this by using many of the methods that Aamer Rahman cites in his joke.

In fact, let’s look at it again, but, this time, after he brings up a “time machine,” imagine that white people are doing all the things that, in the joke, non-white people do (with the corresponding geographic referents, obviously).

You said:

In response:


Please quote where I’ve done this.

I mean, please even quote where I’ve said the words “all whites.”

You said:

In response:

I agree. But I haven’t done the things that you say. So, I should be OK, right? :grinning:

In other words, imagine if you’d said, “But you are saying racism is white supremacy, and that this is its sole functional form. You can do that, but in the long run, it will only lead frustration on your part and whites disgust.”

If you had said that, I would not say, “Show me where I said that. Quote me.”

I’d say, “Yeah: I say that a lot.” So, instead, I’d ask, “Why? Why should saying racism is white supremacy lead to frustration on my part and to white disgust?”

Instead, you’re saying that I’ve said things I’ve not said.

How would you suggest I respond to you saying things that I’ve not said?

You said:

In response:

Perhaps. But it’s all white cloth.

So, in an unjust cloth system, where white cloth is more highly valued than non-white cloth, because it is deemed better, more beautiful, more sophisticated, richer, smarter, having a greater history, etc., you should really be careful how you measure, and where you cut.


(Allen Shepherd) #257

You know, Harry, I am not a Jew, one of the chosen people. They were chosen above me. I got a bum deal there, by God himself! I could be kind of bitter about that.

But I accept it as his choice, not mine. He is all wise.

Do you know where the richest group of blacks lives? Yep, that’s right, this racist nation. Richer than any others in the whole world. Right here.

This must be a really racist place…

(Harry Allen) #258

Thanks, @ajshep.

You said:

In response:

This is irrelevant.



HI Jeremy @vandieman ,

Not sure where it was you showed concern over some Bible translations, but I thought I’d share with you a few things.

Some of the Bible translations the DARCOM series uses to defend our doctrines are: JB, NASB, NEB, NIV, NKJV, RSV, TEV.

There’s nothing new here. In Ellen Whites day we had people who were worried about some of the new translations that were being produced:

“Before the revised version was published, there leaked out from the committee, statements regarding changes which they intended to make. Some of these I brought to Mother’s attention, and she gave me very surprising information regarding these Scriptures. This led me to believe that the revision, when it came to hand, would be a matter of great service to us.” W. C. White, DF 579 (1931); Ministry, April, 1947, p. 17.

Ellen White used a few different Bible translations. One of them being the American Revised Version: (Wikipedia - hold onto your seat)

Textual basis NT: Westcott and Hort 1881 and Tregelles 1857, (Reproduced in a single, continuous, form in Palmer 1881). OT: Masoretic Text with some Septuagint influence). (Wikipedia)

Westcott and Hort! No, not them. Septuagint - LXX - influence…

She also used the RV, and ERV: (Wikipedia)

The New Testament revision company was commissioned in 1870 by the convocation of Canterbury.[2] Their stated aim was “to adapt King James’ version to the present state of the English language without changing the idiom and vocabulary,” and “to adapt it to the present standard of Biblical scholarship.” To those ends, the Greek text that was used to translate the New Testament was believed by most to be of higher reliability than the Textus Receptus. The readings used were compiled from a different text of the Greek Testament by Edwin Palmer.[3] (emphasis supplied)

“Higher reliability than the Textus Receptus.”!? and Ellen White used this…

Finally from W.C. White:

"I do not know of anything in the E. G. White writings, nor can I remember of anything in Sister White’s conversations, that would intimate that she felt that there was any evil in the use of the Revised Version. . . .

"When the first revision was published, I purchased a good copy and gave it to Mother. She referred to it occasionally, but never used it in her preaching. Later on, as manuscripts were prepared for her new books and for revised editions of books already in print, Sister White’s attention was called from time to time by myself and Sister Marian Davis, to the fact that she was using texts which were much more clearly translated in the Revised Version. Sister White studied each one carefully, and in some cases she instructed us to use the Revised Version. In other cases she instructed us to adhere to the Authorized Version.

"When Testimonies for the Church, vol. 8, was printed and it seemed desirable to make some lengthy quotations from the Psalms, it was pointed out to Sister White that the Revised Version of these Psalms was preferable, and that by using the form of blank verse the passages were more readable. Sister White gave the matter deliberate consideration, and instructed us to use the Revised Version. When you study these passages you will find that in a number of places where the Revised Version is largely used, the Authorized Version is used where translation seems to be better.

"We cannot find in any of Sister White’s writings, nor do I find in my memory, any condemnation of the American Revised Version of the Holy Scriptures. Sister White’s reasons for not using the A.R.V. in the pulpit are as follows:

"‘There are many persons in the congregation who remember the words of the texts we might use as they are presented in the Authorized Version, and to read from the Revised Version would introduce perplexing questions in their minds as to why the wording of the text had been changed by the revisers and as to why it was being used by the speaker.’

“She did not advise me in a positive way not to use the A.R.V., but she intimated to me quite clearly that it would be better not to do so, as the use of the different wording brought perplexity to the older members of the congregation.” White Estate DF 579; Ministry, April, 1947, pp. 17, 18.

As I’ve mentioned here before, this was one area of great struggle for me when I first came to Christianity - thanks to the conspiracy theorists. And my cure was simple: study, study, and then, study some more. Don’t allow those fearful-fanatics to hold you back.

Good luck, and God bless!



Silencing is central to the workings of our culture.

The staunch refusal to hear the voices of those we exploit is crucial to our domination of them.

Religion, science, philosophy, politics, education, psychology, medicine, literature, linguistics, and art have all been pressed into service as tools to rationalize the silencing and degradation of women, children, other races, other cultures, the natural world and its members, our emotions, our consciences, our experiences, and our cultural and personal histories.

Manifest Destiny:

Adventist founders and pioneers, as well, were convinced that God had an energetic interest in the affairs of the American people.

Ellen White gave credence to this conviction:

“The United States is a land that has been under the special shield of the Omnipotent One.”

—The SDA Bible Commentary, Ellen G. White Comments, on Rev. 13:11, p. 975.





Lacrimosa dies illa
Qua resurget ex favilla
Judicandus homo reus:

Huic ergo parce Deus
Pie Jesu Domine
Dona eis requiem

Full of tears will be that day
When from the ashes shall arise
The guilty man to be judged;
Therefore spare him, O God,
Merciful Lord Jesus,
Grant them eternal rest.

Godspeed, dear Adventist friends.

“Till I See Jesus”: Looking for Jesus and Finding Him Near
(jeremy) #262

thx for this info, tony…my concern with some of the newer translations has to do with the fact that some of our core doctrines end up being negated…for instance, if you read the NIV version of Hebrews, it’s relatively easy to conclude that christ began his intercession in the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary, even though the context, of course, destroys this notion…this in turn destroys 1844 and IJ…i’ve actually had exchanges with people on this site who’ve used the NIV’s translation of Hebrews to “prove” that egw’s teachings on IJ are baloney…

i think newer translations do offer advantages in some respects in some cases, but as you’re noting egw herself did, things have to be considered on a case by case basis…we can’t allow ourselves to use the language in newer translations to overturn the light egw received through vision…in my view, this plays directly into satan’s hands…


Hi Jeremy,

This is the case for pretty much every translation. There never will be a “perfect” one. One thing I’ve noticed however, about our SDA-KJV-onlyism group, is that they say the very same thing all other (protestant) KJV-onlyists do: “Those new translations attack our core doctrines!” This is why when concerning doctrine, I just go to those who know the original languages. So for me, any good translation will do. I often use the ESV, with some other less literal translation beside it.

Actually, here’s one example of an issue a friend had with the NIV, and brought it up with me just the other day: The NIV they said - along with all the other newer translations, including the NKJV - removed the word “nature” from Hebrews 2:16, which reads in the KJV: “For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.”

Later on that day while at home I did some reading and found that the word “nature” was supplied. This friend was sure that the translators of the newer versions removed it because they’re all against the belief that Christ had our fallen nature.

I’ll share a video with you, quite old now, from the program The John Ankerberg Show. Now it’s very long, running time 3 hours and 42 mins. The program is on Bible translations, and so they invited some of the translators of the NASB, NIV, and NKJV I believe; I forget now exactly, it’s been years since I last watched it. Also, as a counter argument, they invited a couple of people who are against those newer versions. One of the 2 is a KJV-onlyists. Put it this way, he does not come across too good when challenged by those scholars.

(reliquum) #264

I suspect that there is one central truth in this egregious and arbitrary “inspiration”, to wit, that
some of Ellen Whites writings, in the lens of ultimate truth
will be as if the have never been

This surely is one of them. One wonders where such a thought came from-
and who would bring it forward as publishable, from her many profitable works.

(jeremy) #265

i don’t think so, timo…what’s going to happen with egw detractors is just what’s going to happen with the jesus detractors during his time on earth: they are going to see him crowned king of kings and know that they are lost…

egw, of course, won’t be crowned king of kings…but her teachings will be vindicated on the other side of time, and her detractors are going to know that they’ve been wrong…

(jeremy) #266

but i think the case against certain translations does have some traction…what do you do when your translation says jesus ascended into the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary at his ascension, see Heb 9:12, NIV…if you don’t throw out 1844 and IJ, it means you’re disregarding or reading around or reinterpreting your translation, which begs the question of why are you putting any credence in that particular translation…why not just use a translation, like the KJV, which gets these crucial points right…

notice that the NIV translation of Heb 9:8 has given rise to the teaching that jesus incarnation on earth was the anti-type of the holy place ministry of priests in the earthly sanctuary…one can say that a contextual reading destroys this notion…but there are people who use this starting point provided by the NIV to construct rationales against anything that the context demands…you can’t reason with them anymore…for the most part, they are a hopeless case…i just think there are enough legitimate questions regarding interpretation without the manufactured questions occasioned by various newer translations…and it’s generally the newer translations that are the problem, which in itself tells you something, namely, that satan knows his time is short, and is stopping at nothing to try to obscure or negate the visions of egw…i am convinced that the ministry of egw uncovers the work of satan like nothing else does, which is why she’s under such sustained attack…


Jeremy: EGW detractors = Jesus detractors = eternally damned.

Euclid: Things which are equal to the same thing are equal to each other.


Do you see how shockingly out of proportion that statement is, Jeremy?

You called her a plagiarist, remember?

in egw, we had a meat-eating plagiarist, just like we had a drunk in noah, a liar in abraham, isaac and jacob, an adulterer and murder in david, a misogynist in paul, and an anti-semite in martin luther…no-one that we know anything about seems to have represented a clean slate…but original sin is another subject…

Jesus represented a clean slate, didn’t He, Jeremy?

That’s why your statement above, comparing “EGW detractors” with “Jesus detractors,” is beyond the pale, in my opinion.

You left the impression that being an “EGW detractor” is eternally fatal.

And how is calling EGW “a meat-eating plagiarist” different from being an “egw detractor?”

Please explain. Thanks.

Responding to the General Conference’s Latest Document