< Prev  1  2  3  

Some of Her Critics Would Eventually Doubt the Bible

Update: January 4, 2006

Dirk Anderson provided us with a few more descriptions of his beliefs about Scripture:

I accept the authority of the writings of Paul...that has never been a question with me...the only question is what to do when the writings of Paul contradict the sayings of Jesus and the apostles. My point on authority is that Jesus said the servant is not greater than the master. Therefore, when there is a supposed conflict, one must rely first upon the sayings of Jesus, then upon the writings of the apostles, then upon the brothers of Jesus, then upon Paul, then upon Hebrews.—"Re: ellenwhite.info needs revising," June 19, 2005.

The difficulty with this view, though, is that the Bible claims that it was Jesus who spoke through the Bible writers:

Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. (1 Pet. 1:10, 11)

Thus, since the Bible claims that it was Jesus who testified through the Old Testament prophets by the Holy Spirit, we are left with the conclusion that it was Jesus who spoke through Paul. How then could Jesus contradict Jesus?

The same "tests of a prophet" that are used to test EGW can be used to test any Bible prophet. That only applies to Bible "prophets". That doesn't apply to the NT or any of the OT not written by prophets. I have not developed any "tests of inspiration". You and your cohorts point to supposed errors in the Bible and claim Ellen White committed the same, but you fail to point out that those parts of the Bible were not written by prophets and are not subject to the same tests of a prophet.—"Re: Here's the update for you to look over," Aug. 27, 2005.

Somehow Dirk has missed our point. We do not "point to supposed errors in the Bible and claim Ellen White committed the same." Instead we hesitate to condemn her with arguments that also undermine the Scriptures. In our study of the Bible we try to show that the supposed errors a skeptic throws at us are in fact not errors at all.

But our greater concern with the above is the apparent carelessness in our critic's approach to all of this. Before launching attacks against Ellen White, should he not have first determined how to tell whether an individual is inspired or not, when that is essentially the entire issue under discussion?

Every "prophet" who claims their writings are "inspired" deserves to have them evaluated. Just because I happen to use a method of evaluation that is also being used by a higher critic to attack the Bible does not mean that I agree with the findings of that Bible critic. Why is that so hard for you to understand?—Ibid.

This candid comment is really helpful. Our critic thus acknowledges that the weapons he levels against Ellen White are also used to demolish the Bible, though he here claims that he doesn't do that himself. Is it at all possible that he is being inconsistent in his application of the weapons of higher criticism against Ellen White but not the Bible?

Also in the above email, our critic informed us that:

• He disagrees with Tony Bushby's conjectures about Jesus having a twin and not being resurrected.
• He agrees with Tony Bushby's conjectures that Francis Bacon corrupted the King James Version, and that Constantine had a "leading role" in forming the New Testament canon.
• He believes that some unknown person took Matthew's original Hebrew gospel and merged it with Mark to form the Matthew we have today. Thus Matthew wrote some of Matthew, not all.
• He believes that Mark wrote Mark and Luke wrote Luke.
• He believes that John told his gospel to one of his disciples, who then "presumably" "transcribed what John told him."

If one compares the last three points with the statements we quoted from on the first page of this topic, it might seem that our critic is contradicting himself, or at least being inconsistent in his statements. But we do find the last two points above to be more palatable than his initial statements.

< Prev  1  2  3