The Investigative Judgment Has Three Main Problems


I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,
That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.
For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen…

By wisdom a house is built, And by understanding it is established…

Unless the LORD builds the house, They labor in vain who build it; Unless the LORD guards the city, The watchman keeps awake in vain…

Woe to him who builds his house without righteousness And his upper rooms without justice…

Before we continue, I think it would be well for us to meditate on this, Kevin:


Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:

And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.


Ellen White:

The correct understanding of the ministration in the heavenly sanctuary is the foundation of our faith.
—Letter 208, 1906

We should not rest until we become intelligent in regard to the subject of the sanctuary.
—LS 278

The subject of the sanctuary and the investigative judgment should be clearly understood by the people of God. All need a knowledge for themselves of the position and work of their great High Priest.
—4SP 313

Jesus has made atonement for all sins of ignorance, but there is no provision made for willful blindness.
—513C 1145.

Hiram Edson: My advent experience has been the brightest of all my Christian experience. . . . Has the Bible proved a failure? Is there no God, no heaven, no golden city, no Paradise? Is all this but a cunningly devised fable? Is there no reality to our fondest hopes and expectations?

Ellen White’s answer was firm:

I do not wish to ignore or drop one link in the chain of evidence that was formed as, after the passing of the time in 1844, little companies of seekers after truth met together to study the Bible and to ask God for light and guidance. . . . The truth, point by point, was fastened in our minds so firmly that we could not doubt. . . .The evidence given in our early experience has the same force that it had then. The truth is the same as it ever has been, and not a pin or a pillar can be moved from the structure of truth. That which was sought for out of the Word in 1844 , 1845, and 1846 remains the truth in every particular.

—Letter 38, 1906 , pp. 1, 2.

The proclamation of the first, second, and third angels' messages has been located by the Word of inspiration.

Not a peg or pin is to be removed.

No human authority has any more right to change the location of these messages than to substitute the New Testament for the Old.
—Ms 32, 1896, p.

Thus spake the prophet. I’m encouraged to see her admit that the truth was “fastened” in the pioneers minds. “Minds” are a rather unreliable place to drive in stakes, in my experience, but at least she admits it.

Examples of unequivocal EGW statements like the above can be multiplied for those not convinced.

It is clear that to to go mucking about with pins, pegs and pillars is to incur the wrath of God, and, not incidentally, the brethren.

This has resulted in well over a hundred years’ accretion of doublespeak silt that has formed the treacherous bottom of the cognitive slough of despond in which we find ourselves mired.

I don’t delude myself that I can drain this swamp beyond, by the grace of God, my own mind, which is miracle enough for me.

It is clear that while Ellen White is (of late) admittedly “not perfect,” and “we have much to learn and much to unlearn,” it is still true that she is never, and cannot ever be, wrong in any substantive way, particularly in the matter of pegs, pins and pillars—the weight-bearing apparatuses of this doctrinal edifice which we must, at all costs, prevent from collapsing on us all.

The recent document conflating this shaky doctrinal contraption with “Jesus” telegraphs the desperation in the air, and hints of blood in the water.

I’m no Bible scholar, not even a rank amateur, so I’m definitely in over my head with Kevin.

I guess what I am is curious. I wonder if there was ever anything to this visionary adventure some of us have been on so long.


Kevin, maybe it’s just me, but I can’t make sense of what you wrote there, though I’ve read it multiple times.

Why don’t we start at the beginning and you teach me from the Bible what the daily ministration in Leviticus was all about.

Perhaps others also suffer from the brain fog I’ve always had around Sanctuary issues.

Would you be willing to do that?

Think of it as giving a Bible study in Present Truth to the whole wide world (potentially).

(Kevin Paulson) #68

I’m happy to share a few minutes in doing what you ask.

First, let’s not focus on the entire daily ministration, as your question concerns only the forgiveness ritual and the sin offerings. As I said before, the word “individuals” as used in this Ellen White statement (PP 354) is the key.

In context, this word is not defined specifically as any particular group of individuals, so it is best that we understand it as a reference to ALL individuals—common people, rulers, priests, and the congregation as a whole.

Ellen White then goes on to explain what happened to the blood of the sacrifices after the offerings were slain. She speaks of those occasions when the blood was sprinkled before the inner veil in the Holy Place, as well as those occasions when the blood didn’t go into the Holy Place, but when the flesh was eaten there instead.

This paragraph essentially covers all the different offerings for all individuals in Israel, some of which involved blood going into the Holy Place, others which involved flesh being eaten in the Holy Place.

At the bottom line, it is how we understand the word “individuals” at the start of this statement. If Ellen White had narrowed this to one group of individuals or another, the statement would be problematic, as the Bible indicates different rituals which applied to different persons. But as the word “individuals” at the beginning is not narrowed to one or another group, the description of the forgiveness ritual that follows, which includes both the mediation of blood and the eating of the flesh, is entirely consistent with the Biblical record, as both the blood and the flesh brought about the transfer of sin.

I hope I am coming through clearly now.


Kevin, I appreciate your effort, but I need the basics from the Bible first. Let’s sort out the Bible before we sort out EGW, okay?

I need a kindergarten teacher here, seriously, and I’m sure I’m not alone.

The Sanctuary doctrine is the foundation of Adventism. Surely it is worth the effort to lay the Bible foundation first, and build on it later?

Only if you want to, of course, but I’m sure you’re quite capable. .

This is an area of your expertise, and many can potentially see things more clearly through your teaching here in this very public place.

(Kevin Paulson) #70

Unfortunately this will have to wait till tomorrow, as the hour is late, and I have a friend over just now.


Oh, no time pressure meant at all, Kevin—I’ll appreciate whatever you can do, whenever you can do it! This week, this month, this year—all good!

Enjoy your company!

I’m in and out of here irregularly, so I may or may not catch your posts right away, but still interested.

(Harry Allen) #72

Thanks, @GeorgeTichy.



(Greg Cox) #73

The greatest difficulty in understanding the IJ is not studying it for oneself, and not understand WHAT Yom Kippur actually is. When Ford based his arguments he was entirely reliant on the altered LXX of the OT and the Hort/Westcott/Aland train-wreck we call the “Modern” translations.
There’s ZERO argument when one studies the true translations.

(Greg Cox) #74

thank you Cassie - I’m fully insupportable of these quotes. I quickly read some of the others and you seems to have some questions about the IJ process. Have you studied Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement)? I believe most of your questions would be answered by understanding the process of the service.

(George Tichy) #75

Have you done that? YES____… NO____
How long did it take for you to really research it using “true translations?” __________
Did you use someone else’s “true translations” or did you translate it yourself? ___________

Thanks for filling in the blanks accordingly.

(Greg Cox) #76

yes, side by side comparison LXX to MSS, AV to Modern. over a period of about 3 weeks.
Masoretic and AV are in unison, historical, verifiable.

(George Tichy) #77

As I said, you must warn the Church’s leadership asap. This is serious stuff, and no theologian has figured it out. You must act fast on it!


Can you provide a list of “acceptable translations” of the Bible and provide your documentation?


I am embarrassingly ignorant about the Bible, Greg.

Could you tell me where the blood went when individual sinners brought a sin offering to the priests?


PS: Did you mean “in support of these quotes?”

(Greg Cox) #80

Come on brother! You know it ain’t easy! But in my research there are many today who have repeatedly brought the subject up to no avail. Of most detail that I’m aware of is Amazing Discovery’s letter to the BRI about this issue. I think that was about 4 years ago. I have also emailed Goldstein but he didn’t seem concerned in the least. So there it is!

(Greg Cox) #81

I don’t do other’s research: If you are unawares of the MSS and Received text then may I suggest “Battle of the Bibles” by Veith and the vid series on the Siniaticus by Daniels both available on YouTube. Additionally, the recent publication: “Assault on the Remnant” ch 8 and specifically ch 19 which directly details the Sanctuary issues with modern translations.

If you are genuinely interested in this topic, head to ch. 19

(Tim Teichman) #82

It’s not others’ research. You posted, over and over, that the “modern translations” being used are corrupted and other translations should be used.

Which others? And why?

Without details and reasons, it seems like you’re slamming others for their views.