@Hubert F. Sturges: The Trinity of the Godhead by Fruchtenbaum [Please post a …

Comment on What does it take to be a true Seventh-day Adventist? by AzGrandpa.

@Hubert F. Sturges:

The Trinity of the Godhead

by Fruchtenbaum

[Please post a link to the article. Posting the entire article itself is too long for the comment section – sdp].

AzGrandpa Also Commented

What does it take to be a true Seventh-day Adventist?
@AzGrandpa: There is no “link”. Book is out of print.

Will send ms word attachment to an email addr.


God Bless

In Six Days

What does it take to be a true Seventh-day Adventist?

The Doctrine of the Trinity is biblical, both in the OT and the NT

Recent Comments by AzGrandpa

LSU Responds to Issues Regarding Dr. Diaz and WASC

The End of “Junk DNA”?

Hebrews 9:3-5

Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)

3 Behind the second parokhet was a tent called the Holiest Place, 4 which had the golden altar for burning incense and the Ark of the Covenant, entirely covered with gold. In the Ark were the gold jar containing the man, Aharon’s rod that sprouted and the stone Tablets of the Covenant; 5 and above it were the k’ruvim representing the Sh’khinah, casting their shadow on the lid of the Ark — but now is not the time to discuss these things in detail.

It is obvious there are two vails.

The Greek word for “sanctuary” in this chapter is ta hagia which means “the— plural.” hagia means “holies,” or “holy places.” Paul is speaking of the sanctuary of two holy places, or rooms. Ta hagia is used only nine times in the N.T., and all are in the book of Hebrews (8:2; 9:1,2,8,12,24,25; 10:19; 13:11). Paul defines terms in 9:1-3, where he tells us about the entire sanctuary, then the first apartment, and then the second apartment. He gives us two meanings of ta hagia: 9:1 (“sanctuary”)—the entire sanctuary of two apartments, and 9:2 (“sanctuary”)—the first apartment. Ta hagia means the entire sanctuary, but in 9:2 he applied it only to the first apartment. Can ta hagia also mean “second apartment?” No, it cannot, for in 9:3, Paul specifically tells us the word he has in mind when he speaks of the most holy place,—and he uses a different Greek word: hagia hagion (“holy of holies”—literally). The King James Version correctly translates ta hagia in 9:24 (“holy places”), and incorrectly translates it in 9:8 (“holiest of all”), and 10:19 (“the holiest”). In 9:12 and 9:25 it gives “holy place.” Ta hagia can only mean “first apartment” or “two-apartmented sanctuary,” and nothing else. On the basis of the correct meaning of ta hagia, Jesus did not enter once and for all into the most holy place in 31 A.D. He entered the sanctuary and first apartment then.

Louie Bishop Testifies, Again, about His Experience at La Sierra University
> The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed– inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. >

> Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.
> Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method — the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible. >

Scientists who disagree with the current BB theory.

@Sean Pitman:

The End of “Junk DNA”?
@pauluc: @pauluc:

When at Glacier View [the church] largely accepted Des Ford’s views on the sanctuary in Hebrews?

Desmond Ford Admits His Duplicity (Graffiti in the Holies)


David Lin’s letters and articles appeared in various Adventist periodicals at a time when Desmond Ford’s teachings were the center of attention in the Adventist church. Due to a revival of interest in him in recent years many readers have requested that Lin’s analysis of Ford’s theology be published in book form.




Like Chess Players
We succeeded in removing a cancer. But the process which led up to it was an exposure of our naivety. The Chinese have a saying that in a game of chess, the onlooker has a better grasp of the situation than the contestants. It might be so in this case. On one side of the chess board was Desmond Ford, and on the other the committee of 120. And after the game was over, Ford exulted over the fact that his 120 antagonists had been pulled over to his side, because “the brethren had made tremendous progress in the past few days and that the church’s position was closer to his than it had ever been before. He expressed the thought that if we have come thus far in four days, imagine how far the church will go in four years in changing its position.” Ministry, October 1980, pg. 9

Should We Cover Heresy? Or Divulge It?
The reluctance of our leaders to treat Ford as an open foe even in the face of his bold attacks against the fundamentals of our faith may be attributed in part to sentimental reasons. Old friendship ties blinded their eyes to his true identity. As we overdid ourselves in being honest, generous, and fair, it eventually dawned on us that he was employing the double-dealing tactics of the arch-deceiver.

“we are disgusted with the slipshod thinking of this “peer” of Adventist theologians. If Londis, who was present at Glacier View, would seriously consider all the cases of poor methodology in Ford’s use of sources, his wild, sweeping assertions and purposeful falsification of evidence (as best exposed in Ralph Larson’s “Reply”), Londis would blush to own him as his peer, much less express sympathy for his lost cause. In his zeal to win recognition for the new generation of Adventist theologians, Londis has chosen a poor specimen. When we first stepped into the water to wade across this “Ford,” we were fearful of being drowned in its depths, but now we know that we were intimidated by Londis’ attempt to magnify the office of our “experts.” Actually, the
profoundest thoughts Ford can present are ankle-deep.”