Dr. Geraty clarifies his “Challenge” to literal 6-day creationism
After reading THROUGH the abundant comments, some on-topic, others to the side, I am so motivated to write my toughts. Some others have already beat me to comment on “The Shaking,” but I’ll add a few thoughts.

In my little country church, watching people leave the church because of an unkind remark, or others come in to take their place; watching this process increase over years, I had a concept of “Shaking” going on. Yes, Jesus will soon appear. WOW! Talking about a “church within a church” and seeing the potential–no, the fulfillment–of harm, I stand amazed at the literal fulfillment of the prophecy so many years ago, now fulfilled.

Thank you to those who are walking away from the church in their hearts, for confirming to me the supporting truth in the writings of Ellen G. White. You have confirmed my faith! Still, I care. I am so sad to see you go, literally or mentally.

It also reminds me of a sermon I heard years ago by Elder Frazee: The Ministry of Heresy. Every heresy that “slips by God” was allowed for a purpose: to lead His chosen to deeper study and reconfirmation of faith.
May GOD’s name be honored here, both by believers and unbelievers. You ALL confirm the truth. In the end, EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW!

Now to the commenters: He whose faith does not make him More kind, More loving, his religion is a curse to himself and the world. WE MAY DISCUSS ISSUES, NOT PEOPLE, unless we wish to reveal our TRUE characters. No, that is not a real quote–but it is close, and holds to the concept.)

Let’s commit to intense study and MUCH, MUCH PRAYER. Our church is shaking to the core; will our faith follow? GC needs our prayers. We want truth to prevail–now, don’t we?

Northern California Conference Votes to Act Independent of the General Conference
Much enjoyment of someone’s excellent humor in writing the 10 Reasons a Man Should Not Be Ordained. Thanks for posting.

Northern California Conference Votes to Act Independent of the General Conference
Thank you, Sean, for replying to my query on Gen 3 and 4. I have read the NIV, but put less stock in NIV than KJV, which has a better reputation in our circles. IF the NIV translation applies in Gen 4:7 – that “sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.” Then is it fair to assume that Gen. 3:16 also means that “you shall desire your husband, but he will master you.”
Is the same Heb. language used in both texts? I don’t know Biblical languages.

I do believe in the principle of Eph. 5:21, as well as 5:22, etc.
Somewhere in EGW I received the idea that God wants to bring us back to the stated relationship that originated in the Garden. Restore the Sabbath; restore the pre-fall marriage relationship. Sin causes tension, separation and bitterness… The closer we come to Jesus, the less desire we shall have to dominate each other. Harmony between the sexes can exist when we (self) is hid in Christ. Domination of one human by another human of either sex is to interpose self between God and mankind, who is to be our true Master. A gentle leader (husband) will inspire a submitting wife.

Thank you for reading, and perhaps responding as you see fit.

Northern California Conference Votes to Act Independent of the General Conference
Sean Pitman: Thank you for your explanations and referring to quotes from God’s word in its various forms. I have read the Equality statements in EGW and understand the Bible quotations that indicate that truly ‘in Christ there is neither male nor female.” I still have a question about the Genesis statements found in Gen. 3:16 and Gen. 4:7. I read this in the KJV, and have never heard anyone address this comparison TD.

Both verses say basically the same thing. When I read it, I thought, Whoa! I never saw THAT before.
3:16 – …”her desire shall be to her husband, and he shall rule over thee.”
4:7 – …”your (Abel) desire shall be to him (Cain), and he (Cain) shall rule over thee.” (Abel).

I have heard a husband say that in 3:16 God commanded the husband to rule over the wife (after all, she was deceived and fell first. [implication])

When I read 4:7 and saw that the same verbiage was used, it did not make sense to e that God would have COMMANDED Cain – evil – to rule over Abel – good. I now understand this structure to mean, as a RESULT of sin in the heart, the stronger may take advantage of the weak, and seek to dominate. There is where EGW says NEITHER should seek to dominate the other, for it destroys love.

I also noticed in Genesis that God gave THEM dominion, repeated twice in the same chapter. I have always heard it said that God gave Adam dominion. ‘Adam’ was used like a family name, Mr. & Mrs. Adam.

Am I misunderstanding or misinterpreting the scripture meaning of Gen 3:16 and 4:7?

Northern California Conference Votes to Act Independent of the General Conference
@Henry C Hills: Greetings, Brother. I am interested in your possible comparison between the two texts: Genesis 3:16 with Genesis 4:7. Both texts in KJV follow a very similar phrase pattern. One is between Adam and Eve; the other between Cain and Abel. I have heard that in 3:16 ‘he shall rule over’ [Eve] was a command of God as punishment for disobedience and the fall. In Gen 4:7, the ‘he shall rule over’ statement is the DISOBEDIENT shall rule over the OBEDIENT. I can hardly believe that it is a command of God for evil to rule over good; yet the phrase is so nearly the same in both texts as to demand the same application. Is it not that God is describing the result of sin now residing in the heart that causes the stronger to try to control and dominate the weaker? That would fit both scenarios, would it not?
Both texts basically say, ‘your desire shall be to [him] and he shall rule over you.’ which is NOT a command, but a result of the sinful nature.

Northern California Conference Votes to Act Independent of the General Conference
Ultimately, if we cannot grasp the plain “thus saith the LORD” of the Bible, and base our doctrines thereon, we have no possibility of finding “unity.”@Tongkam:

What you say about basing doctrine upon Bible is true. It seems to follow that, where there is no clear ‘Thus says the Lord,’ we should have no doctrine. To create a doctrine where there is no direct instruction appears to be ADDING to the Holy Scriptures.

The same seems true, also, of the 3 GC statements, which basically were non-statements based on a lack of ‘Thus saith the Lord,” which morphed into prohibition without any decisive basis.