The first characteristic of a content not marked on the truth lies in the emotional gimmick " Freakish " , after an analysis of previously studied conclusion without basis , " Ellen White saw the devil in the heavenly sanctuary in 1844 ," would be to say " amazingly, John saw that the spirits of the dead are alive and cry " ( read revelations 6:9-11 ) and John saw " I saw under the altar the souls ... and they cried with a loud voice , " John says above " and I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seven seals , and I heard one " , then John believes in the immortality of the soul , and Ellen in the presence of Satan on the throne of God ? Not logically both texts are forms of prophetic analysis of the future , so in parables one can understand the events . Both Ellen and John use the terms " I saw," " I heard " , but it is logical that the Prophet participates in the visions they are seeing and hearing , but that does not determine its literalness .
As seen in the Greek Bible Dictionary Strongs 3942 we have some definitions of the parable are , " said any dark shadowing forth some didactic truth , especially a figure or symbol " , " speech or speech in which one thing is illustrated by the use of similarity and comparisons , an allegory , extended and elaborate metaphor " , which are clearly seen in the vision of Ellen in topic 17.9 .
But www.adventistas.ws site was published :
In the letters section of that site is found the following positioning : After a text informing the reader of Ellen explaining that vision is a parable , the reader says " She herself said that in another work was just what was missing , you pass . to take all the parables as if they were literal , "and yet the site does not want to accept that mistake and says " Ellen White wrote this vision : I saw ... I do not see it, hear ... , Â and ... stands in the center of the scene depicting . --- " it could not be a parable . "
It was seen that the terms " saw " and " heard " can be used in the vision of a parabola , as the term determined in Strongs 3942 . What about the explanation of the text , have below :
On the issue of the text explains Ellen categorically :
" 5 . On p. 55 stated that a cloud of glorious light covered the Father and that His person could not be seen . Well I said I saw the Father rise from the throne . 's Father was involved in a body of light and glory; so that his person could not be seen , yet I saw it was the Father and of His person came this light and glory When I saw this body of light and glory rise from the throne , knew it was because the Father is moved , . therefore he said : I saw the Father rise from the glory or excellence, His way I 've never seen , no one could behold it and live , however the body of light and glory that enveloped His person could be seen . .
I also stated that " Satan appeared to be by the throne , trying to carry on God's work ." I will give another sentence from the same page : " I turned to look at the company who were still bowed before the throne . " However , this group was in prayer in his mortal state , on Earth , however represented to me as standing before the throne . I never had the idea that these individuals were in fact in the New Jerusalem . And never thought no mortal could suppose that I believed was really Satan in the New Jerusalem . But John did not see the great red dragon in heaven ? Without a doubt . " It was seen another sign in heaven , and behold a great dragon , red, having seven heads and ten horns . " Apoc . 12:3 . What a monster this in Heaven ! Here there seems to be as good as opportunity to ridicule the interpretation that some have given my statements . "
Several emails to the production of this content have not been answered , here I add an e- mail sent to the site was sent to the site :
--- Beginning of the email
From Rubens Caputo Mon Nov 3 04:19:07 2008
Received: from [ 18.104.22.168 ] by web33108.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP ; Mon, 03 Nov 2008 4:19:07 PT
Date : Mon, 3 Nov 2008 04:19:07 -0800 ( PST )
From : Rubens Caputo <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject : = iso - 8859-1 Q = vis = E3o_de_Ellen ? ?
To : <email@example.com> enis
Dear Ennis ,
The more condemns Ellen , more sinks !
The sr . wrote " Ellen White says he saw the devil in the sanctuary in 1844 , but warned that the vision was only half real and figurative means . --- The option is to believe at all, or not believe in anything ," and then vanished such consideration , why? Does mr . Came across the text of the front , in early writings ? pg. 93
" I also stated that" Satan appeared to be by the throne , trying to carry on God's work " I will give another sentence from the same page : . " And I turned to see the company who were still bowed before the throne " Now this group . prayer was in his mortal state , on Earth , however represented to me as standing before the throne . never I had the idea that these individuals were in fact in the New Jerusalem . Nor never thought any mortal could suppose that I believed Satan was actually . the New Jerusalem But John did not see the great red dragon in heaven no doubt " saw another sign in heaven , and behold a great dragon , red, having seven heads and ten horns . " Revelation 12. . : 3 . which monster present in heaven ! here seems to be as ridiculous as a good opportunity for the interpretation that some have given my statements . "
See the problem is that she " never thought that any mortal could suppose that I believed was really Satan in the New Jerusalem ," Ennis possibly you have as much focus to attack not attending school , take the first text you see , happens to attack , strike see, mr. not scrutinizes the text , does not analyze text on text.
Ai gives it ! The sr . accuses a woman of 100 years ago and she already prophetically answer you . That is not a prophet ? ?
Mr. says " but warned that the vision was only half real and figurative middle," she warned only yes, but his thirst for attack not leave you to think ahead a few pages to answer.
ps- I am publishing .
---- End of the email .
We see that any placement should come based on a comprehensive study , this site quotes as follows: " The reader must not have noticed that we did not comment , just limit ourselves to a note " you decide " Show the vision of Ellen White 's ridicule ? ... but the vision ? " , in this section we find the answer on the site " the book of Revelation is written in figurative language throughout . Ellen White made no exception in the presentation of his vision . Meier Ennis does not believe that the devil was in heaven in 1844 as contrary to what the Bible reveals . --- Ellen White could not have seen who was not there ! "the site quotes " Ellen White made no exception in the presentation of his vision . " , only she wrote in the same book the explanation of the topic , and more would be impossible to think that such a view would be literal , as she quotes " Here there seems to be as ridiculous as a good opportunity for the interpretation that some have given my statements " , ie Ellen answers such people as " never thought that any mortal could suppose that I believed was really Satan in the New Jerusalem " , that for lack of a conscious analysis of the subject , the consequence of such action is not only confusing to explain such sites are not in search of true , but in search of confusion . It is necessary , therefore, that when visiting a site has consciousness not validate a matter for speculation , but seek a conscious and analysis based on all possible concepts , a good read of the subject , an adult and reasoned analysis, such actions cause that the deviations are minimal .
Novidades, e respostas das perguntas de nossos colaboradores
Visite o nosso canal youtube.com/buscadaverdade e se INSCREVA agora mesmo! Lá temos uma diversidade de temas interessantes sobre: Saúde, Receitas Saudáveis, Benefícios dos Alimentos, Benefícios das Vitaminas e Sais Minerais... Dê uma olhadinha, você vai gostar! E não se esqueça, dê o seu like e se INSCREVA! Clique abaixo e vá direto ao canal!
analysis, comments, criticism, dissent, Ellen G. White, EGW, Adventism