I don’t typically respond to posts about me. So, this is an exception.
When you think about it, you can’t know if I have difficulty listening, or not, because listening is cognitive, and thus invisible to 2nd parties.
This is true, much the way that I couldn’t know that you resented my formatting, or not.
Now, you could say, for example, “It appears Harry has difficulty with listening,” much as I could have spoken to, “The system of marking my responses that @GeorgeTichy and @2humBabyappear to resent.”
In both cases, neither of us would have had a claim against the other, because we’d be speaking about our own cognition.
In any event, I apologize for saying what you “resent.” I simply do not know, and cannot speak about it, unless you do so, first.
As humans, in our day-to-day lives, use speculation, and that’s normal. But speculation is not the process of the Bible writers and the prophets. They were inspired by the Holy Spirit. It is the speculation that brought us into this never-ending controversy.
For example, she says, Adam and Eve might have eaten of the forbidden tree before the prohibition was placed on it. She copied this from Melvill. Does it sound reasonable in the light of the Bible account? And Eve’s encounter with Satan was a pure fiction, adapted from Paradise Lost, the list goes on…
Adding to and deleting from the Bible is condemned by God.
OK Harry, I don’t know how much more time you are planning to spend on this issue, resent or not resent…, but on my side I am done with it. There’s nothing else to be discussed about it, so I am out now. I defer to Chuck @2humBaby, I bet he will gladly keep the entertainment rolling.
Yes, according to her angels did not know the real position of the Son of God. Then came John Milton to supply the information: Story of Redemption, p. 13: “The Creator assembled the heavenly host, that He might in the presence of all the angels confer special honour upon His Son … The Father made known that it was ordained by Himself that Christ, His Son, should be equal with Himself; so that wherever was the presence of His Son, it was His own presence.”
Paradise Lost, (1896 ed.) Book V, 584-585; 600; 602-608: “Of angels by imperial summons called. Innumerable before th’ Almighty’s throne … Hear, all ye Angels … Hear my decree, which unrevoked shall stand. This day I have begot whom I declare My only Son, and on this holy hill Him have anointed, whom ye now behold At my right hand; Your head I him appoint; and by My Self I have sworn to him shall bow All knees in Heav’n, and shall confess him Lord.”
Hey Chuck,
One of my parakeets told me that about you, so I guess I have to fire him. He may be one of those Jesuits infiltrated in the aviary. Problem is that he is yellow, and there are many of them with the same color. In Saudi Arabia, all of them would be beheaded and dismembered (with Trump’s approval… ) . Not here though; I will be merciful to them, this way they won’t “resent” me …
Henry, you appear to be a great guy. It’s your math that may be a little crooked. So, my unsolicited opinion is, don’t bring up dates into the conversation and everyone will keep liking you, believe me.
I am sure about it based on my personal experience. I NEVER brought a single date into any conversation, and this why everyone, and I mean everyone, just loves me here. Believe me, believe me.
While much of EGW’S writing is eloquent, uplifting and rewarding,
her literary career is tarnished and tainted by her prolific plagiarism.
She will say “ I WAS SHOWN “ implying that God communicated with her directly ( like Moses on the mount ) and then follow it with a phrase, paragraph, page that decades later, was proven to be purloined from other writers.
God certainly chose a most circuitous route to send His messages to her —— via contemporary writers of her era!
This illicit “ borrowing “ compromises her production, which is further contaminated by later research that shows much of her output was actually produced by “ literary assistants “ — glorified secretaries who actually did much of her writing for her.
I do not know how George Knight deals with this troubling aspect of EGW. Prior to the stunning revelations detailed in Walter Rea’s tell all book, THE WHITE LIE, EGW was on the pinnacle of adulation / acceptance. Now that we know she had “ feet of clay “ it is hard to
restore her to the previous pedestal she occupied.
Is is possible, and believe me I don’t buy what I am about to say, could it be the “I was shown” simply meant that she heard or read from others a particular concept? Like I said I don’t buy this but could that be what she meant?
) . Not here though; I will be merciful to them, this way they won’t “resent” me … 
