Many websites try to pervert Ellen White's testimonies using certain texts, one of which is found in the book "Temperança" 1 , this book was not written by Ellen White, it is a compilation that some men decided to make, to increase book sales . There is no need to make books other than to publish those that Ellen actually wrote in her hand.
But the sites that are only involved in denigrating Ellen do not want to analyze this detail, they just want to denigrate. The book "Temperança" 1 was produced in 1949, three years after the book "Evangelismo" 4 .
The content determined in "Manuscript, 3 , 1888", does not exist in any indexing document, nor in "Manuscripts Releases", nor the "Special Testimonies", which by themselves are unpublished compendia in Ellen's life, imagine "Manuscript , 3 , 1888 ", who are not even in these textbooks.
So just to denigrate Ellen the sites try to use this text. Which is in itself either a complete form of ignorance, or just a way to justify your wrong positions.
In order to question Ellen's writings, nobody could work with texts that others published after her death, that would be participating in the producer's levity. In other words, if a website uses such texts, it is part of the justification of the one who produced them, as he knows that the book was produced in 1949 1, and knows that Ellen was already dead at this time. When saying that the text is from Ellen, he confirmed that the producer is trustworthy, and that the burden of damage is on the writer. Now a dead writer does not bear the burden of guilt in a book produced after her death, and so the website that ratifies it simply ratifies it simply because it does not want to accept the writer, and the website thus participates in the responsibility of the person who produced the book. after Ellen's death, as she defines him as the author, even though she knows that the book was not written by her.
For these reasons alone , text 2e3 should not be analyzed , but I will analyze other details related to education in the Bible that are considered similar.
Analyzing the crack of biblical verses 5,6,7 , we have the following
"He who spares the stick hates his son" 5 , why "spares the stick" 5 ? Now he is the one who stops using when he has to use. But who to use? Now "to your son" 5 , in themselves these texts would already generate a similar order to the text found in 1,2,3, but the book of Proverbs being a book written in Hebrew, and therefore of more solid proof than the New Testament, we cannot say it is not from the Bible.
Continuing we have "The rod and the rebuke give wisdom" 6 , the text says that two things give wisdom what are these things? Now "The rod and the rebuke" 6 . And what does "the child left to himself" 6 mean , this child is the one who does his will and not his parents. As in the text "We must not indulge children's appetites" 3 , remember that I am not ratifying the authorship of text 3 just an analysis that God determines concepts that we can consider bad, and so we should condemn God, starting from our viewpoints.
Continuing, we find "you can hit her with the stick, you will not die" 7 , which means "you can hit her" 7 , this word is in the JFAA version 8 , in the NIV version 10 we find "if you punish her with the stick , she will not die " 9 , and ends " Punish her, yourself, with the stick, and thus free her from the grave " 9 .
Such a compendium of texts demonstrates that only God knows what is right, not what we think is right, nor what the world determines is right. The only thing that we must determine is whether the text is really original or not.
If we look at what God, who is a Father, does with his son, we see that we might not accept it. One of these examples is God's order to Abram, "offer him there as a burnt offering" 11 , I would ask the following question, who was more correct before God Abram who went to offer his son or you who would not offer his son?
So let's use an example of hunger, in which a father left his son without eating. We will use the best father, the Eternal Father, and we will use the best son the Son of God.
We see in text 12 , the son of God was sent to the desert, who sent? Now God sent. And so what would happen in the desert? Now the Son of God would go without eating for forty days. And besides, he was sent "to be tempted by the devil" 12 , will you say that it is right or wrong for God to do this to Jesus?
And if God makes you hungry, will you condemn him? Remember that I am not ratifying text 2 and 3, such texts are not found in my documents of proven authorship.
Using it as a copyist's comment, I read as follows. That if my son does not want to eat "chuchu", I would put "chuchu" and would not give anything else unless he ate "chuchu", he would not resist and in less than three days he would eat "chuchu". You can use the texts 5,6,7,9, that is, if my son doesn’t want to eat "chuchu", " Punish her, yourself, with the stick" 9 , but I don’t really like this type of correction, and that of the comment 2e3 had a lot of effect in the past. In other words, grandparents and great-grandparents, when they gave you food, if you didn't eat they would beat you up, or they wouldn't let you eat until you ate what they gave. Most gave the beating.
Logically the 1949 commentary 1 , is really what a copyist would write as the custom of the time. In other words, if my son does not want to eat what is healthy, I let him go hungry "until they feel hungry enough to eat good and healthy food" 3 , but if he can go three days without eating so as not to eat healthy food, the which is extremely impossible, I give him the food he wants to eat, I leave him fed and again we go to the three-day training stage, if I manage to stay three days, but I don't know any child who has done this, if I don't leave the child eating for lunch, she eats that food for dinner.
Remember that the text says "until you feel hungry enough to eat good and healthy food" 3 , it is simply "until you feel hungry enough" 3 , to "eat good food" 3 , the text does not say that it is for condemn the child, it is just "enough" 3 to "eat good food" 3 . See what the writer said to anyone who said "I would risk letting them go hungry" 3 , that is, the writer himself did not, he (a) "would risk" 3, a sign that their children never had to go hungry, they ate without needing it. And this is what happens, if I eat at lunch and give the child nothing, he ends up eating at dinner.
We will therefore determine the idea of the text in detail from examples. If a child does not want to eat "chuchu" for example, should I condemn him to 3 days of direct hunger, even if after 15 minutes he wants to eat "chuchu", should I leave him 3 days uninterrupted without eating? Text 2,3 says to do that? The answer is a categorical "NíO", the text does not say that. For it quotes " until they feel hungry enough to eat good and healthy food " 2 , the construction " until they feel hungry " 3 , comes from the original English " at least three days until they are hungry " 2 , now " at least " 2, does it mean that it must go to the end, or does it define it as the maximum value?
As we love to use the texts of the bible we will analyze the term " at least ", and its translation in the bible. In Luke 19:14, we find " at least " 14 , as it was translated? Let's see
We found " at least in this thy day " 14 , translated " at least in this day " 15 , now we are going to change the text and instead of one day we put three days, which would look like this (at least in three days), least in three days). Now let's make a substitution in the biblical text just for example.
- Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in three days, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes
- saying: Ah! if you knew, at least in three days, what could bring you peace! but now it is covered up in your eyes.
Now, from the text, should we ask? Should the person know only at the end of the three days? Or could you learn up to three days? Now the answer is simple, the person had the limit of learning in up to three days, this is the term of " at least " 2 , so it is not to condemn the child to have three days of hunger, but to eat the food in up to three days.
When the person only aims to attack he does not seek to analyze the text, see that a good analysis expands the understanding of the text and makes its meaning understood. But the search for rampant attack only aims to destroy and does not build rationally and analytically sustained logic.
In other words, the act of starving, usually happens when the Father in heaven determines, for example, Christian persecution or suffering 13 , but in the natural the child eats.
Grades:
The website http: // www. .ws Adventists have always been making unrecognized comments against Ellen, baselessly accusing them without conscientious and correct analysis, emails are always sent to such a website, which almost never publishes them, demonstrating their action of not wanting to accept the truth.
This content was sent to that site on 02/21/2010, and again on 06/24/2010.
1. Te - Temperance (1949)
2. I would recommend letting them go without for at least three days until they are hungry enough to enjoy good wholesome food. I would risk their starving. I have never placed on my table things which I did not allow my children to partake of. I would place before them just what I myself would eat. The children would eat of this food and never think of asking for things not on the table. We should not indulge the appetite of our children by placing before them these rich foods.--Manuscript, 3, 1888. {Te 158.2}
3. I would recommend letting them go without food for at least three days, until they are hungry enough to eat good, healthy food. I would risk letting them go hungry. I never put food on my table that would not allow my children to participate. I put before them only what I ate myself. The children ate this, and never thought to ask for what was not on the table. We should not indulge the children's appetites by presenting them with these indigestible foods. Manuscript 3, 1888.
4. Ev - Evangelism (1946)
5. Pro 13:24 He who spares the rod hates his son; but whoever loves him, in time punishes him. 8
6. Pro 29:15 The rod and rebuke give wisdom; but the child left to himself shames his mother. 8
7. Pro 23:13 Do not withdraw discipline from the child; because if you whip it with a stick, you will not die.
Pro 23:14 Thou shalt whip her with a stick and deliver her soul from hell. 8
8. JFAA - João Ferreira de Almeida
9. Pro 23:13 Do not avoid disciplining the child, if you punish him with the stick, he will not die.
Pro 23:14 Punish it, yourself, with the rod, and thus deliver it from the grave [46]. 10
10. NVI - New Version in the International
11. Gen 22: 2 God went on: Take your son now; your only son, Isaac, whom you love; go to the land of Moriah, and offer it there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I shall show you . 8
12. Mat 4: 1 Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert, to be tempted by the Devil.
Mat 4: 2 And having fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward hungry . 8
13. 1Co 4:11 Until this hour we have been hungry and thirsty; we are naked, and we receive slaps, and we have no right inn,
1Co 4:12 and we get tired, working with our own hands; we are reviled, and we bless; we are persecuted, and we endure it;
1Co 4:13 we are defamed, and we exhort; up to the present we are considered as the waste of the world, and as the scum of everything. 8
14. Luk 19:42 Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.
15. Luk 19:42 saying: Ah! if you knew, at least on this day, what could bring you peace! but now it is covered up in your eyes.
