IAUA End Time Ministry
Preparing for the End of Time
The Lord is Coming! Are you ready?
|
|
IAUA End Time Ministry |
|
Preparing for the End of Time | |
|
The Lord is Coming! Are you ready? | |
| Home / Archives | |
|
Dear Brothers and Sisters in
IAUA (ee-ah-oo-ah) our Father,
Greetings on this day of preparation for the weekly Sabbath. I pray this newsletter finds you in good health and happy in the service of IAUA. This is the 14th day of the 7th month of God's Sacred Calendar in the estimated year 6017 Anno Mundi. The fall Holy Day season continues tomorrow with Tabernacles Sabbath on the evening of the 15th day of the 7th month (Saturday, September 21th on the 2013, Gregorian Calendar, at sunset on Friday, September 20th). The Sacred month begins on the world day after lunar conjunction and the sacred year begins with the Spring Passover Rule dates my research, and others, has determined for the Gregorian Calendar dates of God's Sacred Calendar. The Millerite Calendar (Spring New Moon Rule) is a month late this year. The Calculated Rabbinical Calendar is two days early in the fall this year.
Excerpts of another discussion on LinkedIn. Mario Petrovalle wrote: New Book from EGW Estate - Steps to Jesus ( Adapted from Steps to Christ ) but with differences. There an interesting part in Chapter 7, page 60 Check out this LINK and see if the adapted version says what Ellen White wrote http://text.egwwritings.org/publication.php?pubtype=Book&bookCode=STJ&lang=en&pagenumber=60 Please comment on this page or any other part of this book.
Mario Petrovalle wrote: To make it easy to start the discussion, this is the text on page 60 "It was possible for Adam before he sinned to form a righteous character by obeying God’s law. But Adam failed to do this. Because of his sin, we are all sinners, and we cannot make ourselves righteous. Because we are sinful and unholy, we cannot perfectly obey God’s law. We have no righteousness of our own to do what God’s law requires." {STJ 60.3}
Philly Washington wrote: Mario, Good one to start the discussion, it says "because of his sin we are all sinners...," as opposed to "because of his sin our natures are fallen...." Here is Ellen White's original words. "It was possible for Adam, before the fall, to form a righteous character by obedience to God's law. But he failed to do this, and because of his sin our natures are fallen and we cannot make ourselves righteous. Since we are sinful, unholy, we cannot perfectly obey the holy law. We have no righteousness of our own with which to meet the claims of the law of God." I'll let the group discuss how this changes the inspired message
Jim Ayars wrote: Interesting. Whoever committed the abridgement/modernization softened/weakened EGW's doctrine of Original Sin. It's still there, but not as strong. There were other weakenings also; but this one is most blatant. We have a hard enough time as a denomination to accept this truth as it is, without this diminishing of her support of it. As a holder of a Ph.D. in Systematic Theology, I have to admit that I don't like this.
Michael Stough II wrote: Of course, one has to wonder why there is a need for adaptations altogether. Of course, I have heard the excuse that Ellen White wrote for her times, and we need to update the language to reflect our current times. Yes, I agree there are vocabulary terms that have taken on additional meanings, but I can't think of any that she uses, especially in the core books like Conflict of the Ages, SC, MB, etc. that are so far from our current usages of the words as to be unintelligible. I also wonder how these adaptations harmonize with what she said regarding the future of a prophetic ministry in the Adventist church after her death, when she stated that, “Abundant light has been given to our people in these last days. Whether or not my life is spared, my writings will constantly speak, and their work will go forward as long as time shall last. My writings are kept on file in the office, and even though I should not live, these words that have been given to me by the Lord will still have life and will speak to the people.” — 1 SM 55. Fortunately, she also wisely said that the Lord is quite capable of taking care of His cause and also was quite adamant that we focus on God's word as our true source of knowledge (although I am thankful she was used by the Lord and greatly appreciate the messages through her pen.)
Rose marie Alridge wrote: I could not even wait to read all the comments here, I guess we would say that we need to update the Bible too? Well that is been done anyway with all these new crappy translations and unfortunately we just hang on to them because it sounds good and is easier to understand, Really Now? My grandmother read and understood, My grandmother's Great great great grandmother read and understood too, I will not agree to updating E.G. White's books, If we are lead by the Holy Spirit, we will understand the Bible, likewise if we are lead by the same spirit, we will understand Sis. White's writings, weather they speak directly to a particular church back in her times, it can still apply to us and our local church we get a little eye salve from the holy spirit to look closely at what is going on especially at the head of our churches! The devil is coming from all angels with his weapons of mass destruction, he comes in all size shapes and persons! He is so cunning and sincere at what he does, he has no time to give up, We need to be vigilant, sincere, and not allow him to distract us, you know, May God through the holy spirit give us a thorough Revival and Reformation based on His will.
Marilyn Delinger wrote: According to my copy of Steps To Jesus this "New Book" was copyrighted in 1981. I buy them by the case to give to kids when they are baptized. It was never intended to take the place of Steps to Christ, but was written in simple English to help kids and those who would be lost by some of the wording in the original Steps to Christ. I gave a copy one Sabbath to a young teen who had been baptized that morning. She sat down by the wall and began reading it while waiting to the fellowship dinner to be ready. Please don't tear up things that can help our kids and even older people who are not ready to read the Steps to Christ in the harder wording. Lets be helpful instead of trying to pull everything down.
Doug Church wrote: I work at Pacific Press and with AdventistBookCenter.com. We are not the publisher of Steps to Jesus, but I'm familiar with the book from my time working in Adventist Book Centers. You asked about the length of the book. We publish versions of Steps to Christ in 96 pages and 128 pages. The official White-Estate version, the paging of which matches the index set, is 96 pages. The differences are strictly a result of page and font size. The 128 page versions are smaller with smaller type. The sharing versions of Steps to Jesus are 128 pages like the Steps to Christ, but the font size is much larger. I don't have a word-count between the two books, but if you compare them side-by-side, Steps to Jesus is definately a shorter book. There are certainly others in this discussion better qualified to offer critique on the differences/similarities between Steps to Christ and Steps to Jesus. I'm definately not an expert in whether or not the person doing the adaptation has done an adequate job of accurately representing everything Mrs. White originally said. But I can share some generalities. There are two ways that this process is done. Pacific Press has publised the books Messiah and Blessings. These are essentially paraphrases of Desire of Ages and Thoughts from the Mount of Blessings done by Jerry D. Thomas and reviewed/approved by the White Estate. These are feature the original themes without being forced into the same exact paragraph/sentence structure. They are very easy to read, but some of the original material is left out. We also carry an adapted Conflict of the Ages sets done by the White Estate. In this preparation, the books are essentially condensed, with no words added and non-essential words taken away plus the KJV has been changed to NKJV. These are easier reading than the original material, but obviously some sense of Mrs. White's material is lost. I'm not positive, but I think that Steps to Jesus was done with more of this approach. You also asked for some explanation of the "easier" reading. Vocabulary is only one of the issues addressed. Another is sentence structure and length. At the time Mrs. White was writing, the style was to use very long sentances with lots of commas and many phrases. It is common for them to go three and four lines in the text. Try reading Steps to Christ out loud and you get a better sense of this. This does not detract from the richness of the meaning in the writing, but it does take more concentration to pull out the individual thoughts. Between this and the changes in the English language, many people find Mrs. White's books difficult to read and understand. In either books like Steps to Jesus or Messiah, the long sentences are broken up into individual phrases and the language use is updated to modern styles--making the book easier to read. None of these books was ever prepared with the goal of replacing Mrs. White's original material. The goal has always been to provide a gateway for people who might otherwise be intimidated by the original language to have something that shares the beauty and power of the writing in an easier-to-read format. Once people are excited about the material, many of them later feel compelled to read the complete books. I hope that my explanation has helped, and not muddied the waters. I've been working with these books for a long time. I've worked with many sincere people who don't believe that the books should ever be watered down. And I've worked with many sincere people excited to share the books in a format people can more easily read. That's why as Adventist Publishers we offer both options. Personally, I'm a big believer in the easy reading versions. My wife and I have given away countless copies of the Messiah and some copies of Steps to Jesus as well.
Frank T. Clark wrote: I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the results of the actions of the EGW Estate but I think it is valuable to place some perspective on the actions. The English language has changed even in the last one hundred years. The reading level of the general population has also dropped. Therefore, it is valuable to revise her wording. This always brings the danger of distorting what she said, which I believe is the true point of this discussion. I believe we must logically agree that a revision is necessary at some point. Otherwise, we would require all Bible students to learn Hebrew to study the Bible in the original language. Otherwise, we would still be using the 17th century version of the KJV which is vastly different than the current KJV. Of course, many object to the NKJV or whatever for the same shallow reasons. Please, do not fall into the trap of making the shallow complaint that they should never change her exact words. Yes, we can discuss our view of the accuracy of the changes.
Mario Petrovalle wrote: Frank, I assume that your closing words "the accuracy of the changes" refers to doctrine. May I suggest that before undertaking a new version of any inspired book that the key doctrinal texts are identified and any change to these texts, is cosmetic only. Remember that this discussion was prompted by a text on page 60, which contained a key doctrine and fundamental belief about sin that confuses the reader. Why write something to make it easy to read, knowing that the reader will have to unlearn it down the road and replace it with a correct understanding of the doctrine. We are treading on dangerous ground when we try to improve on the inspired writings.
Frank T. Clark wrote: I don't see a discussion of doctrinal issues. I see criticism of any changes, which I consider inappropriate, as I stated. As far as I can see there is only one sentence with any substantial change in the supplied quote. I do not see a doctrinal change or confusion. I do not see anything that needs to be "unlearned". Please explain what is wrong with the phrase: we are all sinners Compared to the original: our natures are fallen A person should not need to be a college educated theologian or intellectual to understand the claimed "problem". Let us discuss real issues, not slogans or perceived problems without explanation.
Byron Comp wrote: Frank, One consequence I see with regard to the change being discussed and which you quoted is: When Christ was incarnated into man's nature, was He made a sinner by Adam's sin, or did He only inherit Adam's fallen nature?
Jim Ayars wrote: This issue involves the Christian Doctrine of Original Sin. Many of us deny the validity of this doctrine (based upon false definitions of it, generally). When Adam fell, all humanity fell with him. Human nature is a fallen nature. We, thereby, share Adam's guilt and its consequences. We were made sinners by that one man's disobedience. The evidence for this fact is found in the reality that we all die, irrespective of whether we commit a sin or not. Adam's orginal disobedience brought sin into the world, and death by it. The wages of Adam's sin is death. When Christ became flesh and dwelt among us, our fallen nature was restored to perfect union with God. Original sin ended at the incarnation. Now, by the obedience of One, we have been made righteous. Christ's perfect obedience (righteousness) cancels Adam's disobedience. Christ is our Righteousness. In ourselves, we are fallen; in Christ we are unfallen, restored. Those who deny this simple truth generally state that we do not become sinners until we actually commit a sin. We are made sinners, not by Adam's disobedience, but by ouir own. Adam's disobedience only made us liable to become sinners. This is the Pelagian heresy. Ellen White has it right. When we modify her statements in matters like this, we then leave the door wide open to get it wrong. As you can see from this brief analysis, the change involves Christology, the Doctrine of Sin, and the whole Doctrine of Christ Our Righteousness. Blessings in Him in whom we are now complete.
Frank T. Clark wrote: Byron, Now that is what I am talking about! A concrete identification of what problem may exist with the change. I will carefully pray, ponder, and study this. Mario, Seeing Byron's response helps me to understand and explain better what I was trying to say. It is one thing to see a problem and say, "There is a problem!". The problem must be carefully and clearly identified. You did not specifically identify why there was a problem. Do you have any specific detail to add to what Byron said? Maybe, I am dense but I do not see the problem you said was there. Please help me to understand.
Frank T. Clark wrote: Jim, I was writing my response while you were writing yours so I did not see it when I made my last comment. You have gone even farther than Byron did in identifying the details of the problem. It is still very deep for me and will require more prayer, meditation, and study. Thank you for that careful detailed analysis. I appreciate that God has given you the ability to see the issue and explain it so clearly. I feel the power of the Holy Spirit at work to lead us to truth by His influence on our interaction and discussions.
Frank T. Clark wrote: There are many reactions to changes. At one extreme some people love changes which challenge the "establishment" and jump right into them without careful evaluation. At another extreme some people hate changes and reject whatever differs from their comfortable tradition without a careful evaluation. I try to be in a middle position and make a careful evaluation of changes. One of the objects of a careful evaluation is an honest realization that humanity is not perfect but God has provided for the limitations. Perfectionism is a dangerous trap. Criticism is also a dangerous trap. Complacency is another dangerous trap. In this case, I think we can overlook a failure to cover every exact detail and recognize the value of an attempt to make a presentation an easier read. We are constantly growing and learning. There is ample opportunity for later improvement and an increase in understanding. It is valuable to discuss potential problems. I am benefitting from this discussion.
What is your reaction to changes? I pray we may all continue to seek love, peace, and unity in truth preparing for the soon coming of IAUShUO (ee-ah-oo-shoo-oh) Messiah, the Son of God.
Frank T. Clark Next: 2013-10-04 Meekness |
|
Revised 2013-10-04 |