Derrick Gillespie

April 24 at 7:29am Edited

DR HILL'S ATTACK UPON SD ADVENTISM ON "RELIGIOUS HARDTALK": I too echo the sentiment that it has long been prophesied that the SDA church's sharpest critics would be those who once were her brightest stars. Dr Hill has perfectly fulfilled this prophecy before our very eyes. And ironically, this prophecy he has fulfilled was made by E.G. White herself; the same person he went on "Religious Hardtalk" to belittle, undermine and castigate as a "prophetess" within Adventism. Dr Hill has proven himself to be a certain kind of enemy to his own church group, despite pretending to be something else. In actual fact, the most effective enemy of any organization, capable of doing the most damage, is an insider either gone rogue, or one who remains in the organization but not loyal to it. Baalam was an "insider" who was commissioned by the enemy forces to "curse" Israel in the Bible. Dr Hill fits the above described bill perfectly in the context of SD Adventism he claims to still subscribe to (at least in part). [NOTE: *Dr Hill has since left the SDA Church since the original writing of this response] He is also a person seemingly bent on self recognition at the expense of his own brethren, and someone who would even idolize his earthly father (wearing his father's wedding band, despite not married to his mother; who does that, by the way?) at the expense of his church's standard of not wearing jewelry, except for the optional wedding band; and doing so defiantly even while caring none for the standards of the very church he is a part of, or caring little for what his subtle rebellion in that matter of wearing jewelry does to church unity. From day one he seems like someone who would have his own way without regard for church unity, or for the impact of individual witness in lifestyle. So not only does he rebel against his own church standards, in order to idolize his father, but he now drags his church's name through the mud in the public view, simply to fulfill some hidden agenda to get self recognition. Even in normal families it is unkind and inhumane to "wash ones dirty linen in public" and then claim to be a member of that family. Dr Hill is fulfilling a sinister work and he is a pawn in the hands of something dark and divisive, and not only are his motives questionable, but his method adopted (going on national television to seek to resolve questions in his church group) is quite unbecoming. Finally, it is the most confusing thing that someone with so much venom against two major doctrinal pillars of his church group, and who does not believe in the main doctrine of his church, lacks the "intellectual integrity", or the emotional strengthen to leave the organization, but rather prefers to stay and be a divisive agent on so many levels, and in so many ways. A person like that is an ongoing danger (the ambush type) and a farce, and I pray that he will find his way eventually....i.e. to discover not just the truths he is seeking, but the way to be both honorable and a true team member while seeking for truth. [NOTE: *Dr Hill has since left the SDA Church since the original writing of this response] I now continue my assessment of his disappointing presentation (Part 2 appearance on "Religious Hardtalk"), subsequent to the assessment I already started regarding his first appearance on Jamaican national television. See my assessment of his first TVJ appearance at the link below. It will set the background to this Part 2 assessment. http://www.facebook.com/derrick.gillespie/posts/10201337959957298

Derrick Gillespie

SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISM VS "RELIGIOUS HARDTALK": Jamaican SDAs were probably shaken up lately by *SEEMINGLY unanswerable questions raised by an SDA dissident on the popular Jamaican talk show called "Religious Hardtalk". Yet I submit to everyone reading these words that things are NOT always as they appear. The issues ...See More 1Like Share Follow Post Janice Gayle-Brown, Dawn-Marie Gordon and Gordeen James like this.

o o

Oniel A Blake Waiting to hear his charge and your response! April 24 at 3:20pm Like

o
Derrick Gillespie HERE'S PART 2 OF DR HILL'S PRESENTATION. MY COMMENTS/CRITIQUE FOLLOW):http://www.televisionjamaica.com/.../Religio.../Videos/25957

Religious Hardtalk - Andrae Hill - Adventist Who Disagrees With His Church www.televisionjamaica.com July 4 at 5:42am Edited Like Remove Preview

o
Derrick Gillespie Dr Hill's presentation in his Part 2 appearance on "Religious Hardtalk" was rather weak, and much weaker than his first appearance, and I will demonstrate that in my upcoming posts. Suffice it to say that his main intention in part 2 (as advertized prior to his second appearance) was to attack the main doctrine of Adventism, the SDA belief in a pre-Advent "Investigative Judgment" just before Jesus comes, but he spent so much time trying to continue his attack upon the person of E.G. White, and seeking to make her look bad in the public view, that he said very little to argue for his case against the doctrine of the "Investigative Judgment". What he did try to squeeze in at the end was a pathetic/paltry attack that lacks teeth. I have seen and read better (even if from equally misguided opponents and critics of SD Adventism). I will refute his weak attack against the doctrine in question in upcoming posts. His continued tirade against Mrs. White in part 2, reminded me so much of the enemies of Jesus attacking his person while here... not only calling him "Beelzebub" (a demon), but also a "winebibber" (drunkard) and "glutton", simply because Jesus (with good reason) was not as austere in eating and drinking habits as John the Baptist was, who followed the Nazarite vow (an option one had if they so wish). So what's new really? If the purest person on earth, Jesus himself, could be accused of living less than pure, or be presented as less than perfect by critics (despite the charges were certainly false), then what of Mrs White, a person who freely admitted to her failings as a sinner and her fallibility as a messenger? Would she be exempt? I think not. [MORE TO COME SOON].

July 4 at 5:45am Edited Like

o
Derrick Gillespie Having watched Dr. Hill's second appearance again (numerous times so far), the weaknesses in his argumentation became even more apparent to me, and they range from subtle misrepresentation, to faulty conclusions drawn from questions asked (making the questions raised a conclusion in themselves). They also range from misapplication and misinterpretation of forensic data read, to outright weak conclusions drawn because of a biased mindset. On the whole, I find that Dr. Hill's claim to expertise in "research methods", and Ian Boyne lauding him for that 'expertise', to be UNIMPRESSIVE because of the errors in judgment and the lack of insight he demonstrated. And I will demonstrate the same quite soon. July 4 at 5:45am Edited Like

o
Andrew Stephenson Just watched the first few minutes of the video. I know the vows are read at baptism but as an Adventist I know that these vows are man-made to ensure uniformity but each can be proved from the Bible. We each know that we can fully reject EGW and still be Adventist. The key point though is that I have not seen a reason to reject her. May 1 at 11:31am Like

o
Derrick Gillespie JUST KEEP LOOKING OUT FOR WHEN I START TO "UNPACK" DR HILL'S WEAK ARGUMENTATION IN HIS PART 2 APPEARANCE. May 1 at 1:13pm Like

o
Andrew Stephenson Just finished the video. I must say that it is convicting me to more closely examine my own walk and lifestyle. Many people are watching us and any little mistake others are keen to use against us. Ellen G. White is facing more criticism regarding her lifestyle than Moses, Abraham, Joseph, etc., combined. Yet the criticism don't seem to stick. May 1 at 1:17pm Like

o
Derrick Gillespie CRITIQUING DR. HILL'S CONFUSED 'END-GAME' PREMISE: Dr Hill demonstrated how really confused/misguided he is when one considers the way he answers the final key question Ian Boyne asked him, "What is left of SD Adventism?" (i.e. after he allegedly "disproved" its founder, Mrs. E.G. White, and after he supposedly undermined its main doctrine, and labels it as "heresy"). Dr. Hill shows clearly he not only lacks the "intellectual integrity" and the emotional strength to leave an organization he lacks faith in, but he proves that he will even contradict his own self just two TV appearances apart OVER THE SAME ORGANIZATION. Why do I say so? Let me illustrate this observation of mine before even going into the matter of refuting his misguided viewpoints presented in his Part 2

"Hardtalk" appearance, and or the ones he faithfully PARROTS, as coming from APOSTATE AND OFFSHOOT critics of his Church. In his Part 1 appearance he argued that SD Adventism "falls" (or cannot stand) if its leader and prophetess (Mrs. E.G. White), and its main doctrine are disproved. Now if he charged that same organization with "cultism" and "obscurantism" (or at least supports critics who so do), if he colors its founder as (among other things) a false prophet, a liar and pretender, a plagiarist or 'book thief', a hypocrite in lifestyle, and if he also charges several leaders of that organization with ludicrous "obscurantist" explanations given in her defense, and finally labels its main doctrine as "heretical" and "unbiblical", then how can he still seek to support that organization as a "Christian" denomination in his Part 2 appearance? What does he understand the word "Christian to really mean? A mix of all the above described negative traits along with more palatable Christian features, perhaps? Does he deem evil and good mixed-in as "Christian", or reflective of the idea of "Christian"? One wonders!! In addition, if he supports critics of the SDA Church who consign its main doctrine and prophet to the realm of un-biblical "cultism", then how can he conclude that the SDA Church could not be placed in the same group of cultism with Mormonism, Watchtower-ism, Armstrong-ism, etc? And yet all the while he was dabbling in argumentation that does precisely that? What sophistry, and how laughable!! Better yet, that notion is one to be pitied, since it demonstrates pitiful confusion!! Dr Hill is an enigma in and of himself. Not just is he proven to be misguided intellectually (no matter how well-spoken he sounds, or how well-read he appears, or how much he may have been praised by the program host of "Religious Hardtalk"), but he is clearly at odds with himself over an organization he seems to be in two minds over, and is certainly a "doubleminded man"!! It was the Bible which said "a double minded man is UNSTABLE in all his ways". James 1:8. Dr. Hill fits the bill perfectly, and hence is a dangerous guide to follow, yet he is obviously an effective tool that leads astray those who fail to study carefully, or who are not led by sound Biblical principles. Now on to showing the cracks appearing all over his seemingly 'strong arguments'.... July 4 at 5:49am Edited Like 1

o
Andrew Stephenson The restaurant most open to criticism is the one which prepared its food in the open for all to see. The Adventist church is open to criticism because we clearly state all our beliefs and prove them from the Bible. We, unlike most other sects, welcome these challenges because we are convinced about the truth of Adventism. Dr. Hill is not completely honest; he quotes Canright, a contemporary critic of EGW, without mentioning his name. May 2 at 3:36am via mobile Like

o
Derrick Gillespie RESPONSE # 1- REGARDING ALL THE BENEFITS OF VEGETARIANISM: Dr. Hill is well aware of the growing scientific proofs of the health benefits of a vegetarian or near-vegetarian diet, and also of the well documented ills of a purely meat-based diet, and its correlation with heart disease, hypertension, cancers, et al. HERE IS THE LATEST TO SUPPORT THIS FACT: http://online.wsj.com/.../SB10001424127887324423904578523... Just ask the health-keen sport stars and health conscious persons of the world today, just ask the sports coaches and gym instructors, just ask the objective diet specialists and health experts of the world, and the truth becomes self-evident. Just compare the well documented health studies done on SDAs over the years (and done on Mormons, who, like many SD Adventists, are near-vegans, or who use meat "sparingly"), compared to people who consume much meat all over the world, and the undeniable health benefits of the SDA lifestyle of limited meat eating becomes a non-debatable health issue. NO WONDER DR. HILL HIMSELF IS A PRACTICING VEGETARIAN, BY HIS OWN ADMISSION ONLINE!! What I find interesting/ironic is that Dr. Hill claimed E.G. White copied her health messages from oth er writers, yet when speaking on TV of her key message of the benefits of a vegan diet, or the dangers of eating much meat AS A *STAPLE, he failed to PROVE where she copied her health message on vegetarianism!! One would have thought this would have been his prime opportunity to prove his charge. But alas, he failed to so do on the "Religious Hardtalk" program. What he instead sought to

do was to seek to castigate her for linking the health benefits of vegetarianism, or a limited meat diet, to a perceived spiritual advantage that it offers to especially preachers and leaders of the faith. Well, lets assess this approach of Dr. Hill to see if he is being fair to her, and or being objective in the matter. While it is certainly true the Bible does not oppose meat eating per se, neither does it command a vegetarian diet, yet the Bible is replete with health principles that can argue powerfully in favor of the health reform principles advocated by Mrs. White, including the spiritual benefits attached (see God's view of lusting after a flesh-based diet in Psalm 106:13-15 compared to Numbers 11:1-34; notice how it is seen as bringing "leanness to the SOUL" in Ps. 106:14,15). It is not lost on me that the original diet of all humans and animals in ORIGINAL paradise, or the pre-sin state of the world was A MEATLESS DIET (EVEN WHEN ALL CREATURES, ANIMALS INCLUDED, LACKED DEFECTS)!! This is clearly recorded in Genesis: "Genesis 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. Gen 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good..." What is instructive is that this was clearly Gods PRE-SIN ideal, and would have remained so if Man had not sinned, and the resultant Flood (very many years later) had not later taken place. See God allowing the contingency plan for meat consumption (THE LESS THAN IDEAL) in Genesis after the Flood: "Gen 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. Gen 9:2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. Gen 9:4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat." When one also considers that God makes it plain in Isaiah 11:6-9, and Isaiah 65:25 that there will be no killing of animals or predation on animal life in the new earth (i.e. a restoration of ORIGINAL paradise), then we do see the Bible powerfully arguing for Mrs. Whites messages of God intending to bring back Man to his original vegan diet, despite God does allow for meat to be eaten (since the Flood; both for ceremonial and circumstantial dietary reasons) despite it is not ideal (just as he allowed, FOR A TIME, polygamy, and slavery among his people of Israel, despite not the ideal scenario). When one also considers the example of John the Baptist (who had the special task of announcing the first coming of Jesus in his earthly ministry), in he observing the Nazarite vow for life (consisting largely of a vegetarian diet and avoiding alcohol consumption; Matt. 3:4), and when one considers the results of Daniel and his three friends proving (within a short period of time) the mental and physical benefits of a vegetarian diet in Daniel 1:8-20, then the clear connection to its SPIRITUAL BENEFITS is easily demonstrated. Meat as a staple food is certainly not the best or NOT THE IDEAL. Remember Mrs White was mostly against meat as a staple food. A staple food, sometimes simply referred to as a staple, is a food that is eaten routinely and in such quantities that it constitutes a dominant portion of a standard diet. Meat being a staple is what she wrote against mostly, especially for spiritual leaders in Adventism. And I see no real problem there from the Biblical standpoint (only the critics would). When the mind is clear, and the body free from disease, and the blood not laden down with health debilitating substances connected with a high meat diet, then one can certainly be in a better position to function spiritually, it could be certainly argued. No wonder for very many centuries, those religions and religious sects that tended to be ascetic in practice, and which devoted much to spiritual enlightenment, largely practiced vegetarianism (e.g. a variety of temple monks, and spiritualists), or used meat sparingly. The anecdotal evidence of a connection between healthy diet and mental clarity, and hence ones preparedness for spiritual elevation, is self -evident. No wonder God called the priests and specially called leaders to a higher standard of health-related lifestyle than the common man. He strictly restricted them from consuming alcohol, for instance, while they were serving in spiritual leadership capacities, and it therefore strongly suggests that nothing is inherently wrong in Adventism holding its spiritual leaders to a higher standard of healthy living as spiritual leaders. Critics are the only ones who have a problem!! If a vegetarian or near vegetarian diet has so many demonstrable health benefits, hence preparing the mind for spiritual upliftment, and if vegetarianism will most likely return in paradis e or the new earth, then it CANNOT be denied that Mrs. White is advanced in her teaching on the issue. To the critic and the common man, it may seem extreme for her to be making it a rule for spiritual leaders (i.e. strongly advocating the original diet of paradise for spiritual leaders), but all things considered, it is NOT something to warrant condemning Mrs. White over. But of course, Dr. Hill and the critics would naturally fulfill the role of being accusers of the brethren, despite it is demonstrably true that NOTHING IS WRONG TO PREPARE PEOPLE IN THE LAST DAYS TO RETURN TO THE ORIGINAL DIET OF VEGETARIANISM, OR TO THE DIET THAT WILL BE THE NORM IN THE EARTH MADE NEW!!

Vegetarians Live Longer, Study Finds online.wsj.com Vegetarians in an extensive study suffered about 12% fewer deaths over the observation period than people who ate meat. October 6 at 9:26am Edited Like Remove Preview

o
Derrick Gillespie (SEE BELOW MY RESPONSE TO E.G. WHITE SEEING MEAT EATING, AS A *STAPLE, BEING POSSIBLY LINKED TO "ANIMALISM" OR EMOTIONAL DRIVES AND TEMPERAMENT, AS WELL AS HER EATING OYSTERS, AND EATING MEAT ON OCCASIONS). October 18 at 12:36am Edited Like

o
Derrick Gillespie RESPONSE # 2- REGARDING E.G. WHITES OCCASIONAL MEAT CONSUMPTION, USING OYSTERS, AND HER VIEW ON MEAT EATING AND EMOTIONAL DRIVES. Dr. Hill demonstrated his role of being an accuser of the brethren (a trait of Satan himself, as seen ep itomized in Zechariah 3) by his attempt to comb through the life of E.G. White to find times when she might not have been as perfect as she could have been as a health reformer (proving she was only human and a sinner like all of us; hence not infallible ), and in his seeking to castigate her as a messenger on that basis. If I should follow this approach of Dr. Hill, then I guess David, a man after Gods own heart, was a false leader, proven by being a murderer and adulterer WHILE serving as the highest leader in Israel? I guess Elisha the prophet (who took over from prophet Elijah) should not be seen as inspired because he seemingly had major anger management issues, i.e. if he would call bears to kill 42 children for calling him a seemingly harmless nickname; bald head? I should probably question the conversion of Peter (or not take his book of 1 and 2 Peter seriously) because after 3 years of being personally with Jesus, he still was cursing bad words, still denied and betrayed his Lord three times, and even later showed signs of racial prejudice? Maybe too Solomon was not inspired, and hence his contributions to the Bible (Proverbs and Songs of Solomon) should be questioned simply because he himself showed traits demonstrating less than wisdom he was divinely given, since he fell into apostasy, idol worship and had so many ungodly unions and was sexually promiscuous? Oh please!! Dr. Hill should know better than to point to human weaknesses in character, even occasionally falling prey to temptation, or even occasionally falling into sin, as proof of one not being led of God. Men of God in the Bible (prophets and Bible writers included) occasionally fell prey to anger, prejudice, idolatry, and even committed murder, adultery, or on occasions lied, etc.!! And Dr. Hill is going to point to E.G. White not always being fully strict with a vegetarian diet she was advocating (as an ideal) as proof she was not led of God? How pathetically weak as a polemic against her! CLEARLY HE IS UNWITTINGLY AT ODDS WITH THE NATURE OF THE GOSPEL, AND THE NATURE OF THE SALVATION PLAN MADE EFFECTIVE THROUGH JESUS!! GODS PEOPLE, EVEN HIS SERVANTS AND PROPHETS, MAKE MISTAKES, FALL INTO SIN, AND ARE OFTEN LESS THAN PERFECT, BUT GODS LOVE DOES NOT MAKE THEM ANY LESS THAN HIS SERVANTS!! But be that as it may, I still see where Dr. Hill is seeking to make a case where there is none about Mrs. White reportedly eating oysters at some time in her life after advocating health reform, and in her at times occasionally eating meat (not as a staple mind you) when circumstances made it difficult to do otherwise. These matters I will address shortly by looking carefully at what really happened. Forensic evidence or historical facts are neutral, and the same set of facts can reveal different things to different researchers, based on the goggles one puts on, or the preconceived ideas one takes to the operation. More to come on this issue. [TO BE CONTINUED]

May 6 at 8:23am Unlike 1

o
Derrick Gillespie RESPONSE # 3- REGARDING DR HILL ON ELLEN WHITE SOMETIMES EATING MEAT AFTER 1863: Should we discount the message brought by a preacher/messenger for God because they may not be perfect in adhering to the said message they bring on God's behalf? Should we castigate someone as a "prophetic" messenger for being human, and for making occasional lifestyle mistakes, or deny their message is valid because of that? Well, if we were to follow Dr. Hill's approach in seeking to castigate Mrs. White as a preacher of health reform AFTER 1863 (and her advocating going back to the diet of Eden; same to be that of future Paradise), simply because she might have not have been perfect in always strictly staying away from meat, then her message should be condemned along with her!! If we follow Dr. Hill's approach, then I guess, AS I SAID BEFORE, we should also condemn even Bible writers and Bible prophets/preachers/leaders for being less than righteous in keeping with the message of holiness and high moral standards they spoke and wrote about. But I will consign that approach of Dr. Hill to the spirit of o ne who is an accuser of the brethren, and I repeat what I said before: *How pathetically weak as a polemic against Mrs. White! CLEARLY DR. HILL IS UNWITTINGLY AT ODDS WITH THE NATURE OF THE GOSPEL, AND THE NATURE OF THE SALVATION PLAN MADE EFFECTIVE THROUGH JESUS!! GODS PEOPLE, EVEN HIS SERVANTS AND PROPHETS, MAKE MISTAKES, FALL INTO SIN, AND ARE OFTEN LESS THAN PERFECT, BUT GODS LOVE DOES NOT MAKE THEM ANY LESS THAN HIS SERVANTS HE COMMUNICATED THROUGH!! What are the real facts surrounding Mrs. White SOMETIMES eating meat after 1863, despite being a health reformer; sometimes even purchasing *oysters (an article of food considered unclean by the Bible)? The real facts are that Mrs. White was a travelling speaker; not just a local one. Often she was in locations that made it difficult to acquire all the much needed food items to strictly adhere to the vegetarian lifestyle she was advocating. So at times she (AS SHE HERSELF FREELY CONFESSED) ate a little meat under those 19th century circumstances, where large supermarkets (with all the foods from around the world) did not exist then as we have today in any locality. Hence her eating meat at times, to keep up her nutritional requirements, is quite understandable. It does appear too (from second hand reports) that she might at times have become a little careless in not being strict, in always staying away from meat when she could. But that too is understandable, considering she was only human, and so health reform, like the Christian walk, is a gradual process of falling and rising again to attain higher standards. But I guess all that reality was lost on Dr. Hill (and the critics that he PARROTED their accusations). No wonder we are commanded to judge not (Matt. 7:1), seeing we are quite often judging CHARACTER from a position of being unworthy to so judge the CHARACTER of others. As it concerns Mrs. White using oysters (an article of sea-food food deemed "unclean" by the Biblical principle in Deut. 14:9, 10 and Lev. 11:9-12) I WILL ADDRESS THAT FULLY BELOW. IT WILL BE EYE-OPENING!!. [CONTINUED BELOW] July 4 at 6:02am Edited Like

o
Derrick Gillespie [CONTINUED FROM ABOVE] RESPONSE # 4: REGARDING DR HILL ON MRS. WHITE USING OYSTERS AFTER 1863: Dr. Hill proclaimed that modern SD Adventists would be shocked to learn that Mrs. White ate oysters after both she and the SDA Church had already learned of "clean" and "unclean" meats in Deuteronomy 14 and Leviticus 11, and even after she was advocating health reform, and not eating "unclean meats" and in fact no meat at all. I think only those who think like Dr. Hill and like the critics of Adventism that Dr. Hill PARROTS, or probably SDAs weak in the faith (and or not properly researched) would be shocked!! From my own honest and objective research a number of interesting things have been unearthed. Let me share the same with you, dear reader. 1. Alcohol was normally prohibited by the Bible for normal dietary consumption by ministers and spiritual leaders (e.g. Lev. 10:9-11 and Isaiah 5:22) yet a Bible writer advised a Christian minister of the New Testament to use alcoholic wine for medicinal properties, or for the stomach sake (i.e. to ease a medical condition; 1 Timothy 5:23). Snake venom normally

kills, yet when applied medically, as anti-venom, it can and does save lives medically. Pigs are forbidden as normal food by God (see Isaiah 66:15-18), yet it is scientifically discovered that pigs have a high concentration of insulin in its/their stomach, which is extracted and used to medically fight diabetes. God made some things for medicinal value; not for normal consumption in the diet. 2. Oysters were being prescribed by medical doctors in the time of E.G. White (19th century) for certain medical ailments, and, as it is now proven scientifically, oysters have the highest concentration of zinc; zinc being a much needed nutrient that fights a myriad of diseases, and which quickly strengthens the immune system, and which even directly counters certain medical conditions AS A MEDICINE!! In addition, it is now being learned scientifically that zinc is not quickly absorbed from the normal diet by the AGED OR ELDERLY, and hence often the ELDERLY needs supplements of zinc (AS FOUND CONCENTRATED IN OYSTERS) to make up for its slow absorption rate in normal diet. I encourage the reader to simply research online the matter of zinc-deficiency, and its link to a myriad of diseases that spring from a weakened immune system when zinc is deficient. For starters see these very eye opening links below (highlighting new scientific findings just since the last fifty yearslong after E.G. Whites time): http://www.extranet.elsevier.com/.../Zinc%20Deficiency... http://george-eby-research.com/html/warning.html *N.B. This new scientific finding (since fifty years ago) about zinc deficiency in the diet, and also that zinc is most concentrated in human semen and female vaginal/ejaculatory fluid than anywhere else in the human body, and that if lost through much masturbation, and not replaced quickly enough in the diet, that it can lead to a weakened immune and nervous system, explains much about the much debated pronouncements of E.G. White on the dangers of masturbation, as it concerns the causes of several diseases related to a weakened nervous and immune system. It *IS becoming clearer to me that she was right too on that matter (even if some in the SDA Church questions her pronouncements); once we know where to look for the scientific evidence. 3. Mrs. White is on record purchasing/using oysters in her time (in her aging years), and the pioneers at the time explained her practice as probably linked to her use of oysters as a medical treatment for ailments she might have experienced, seeing it was in fact considered by medical doctors at that time (in the 19th century) as having medicinal properties. Consider carefully the following, as gleaned from the compact CD containing all the published writings of E.G. White: ONCE WHEN ELLEN WHITE WAS ILL, HER SON, W. C. WHITE, REPORTS THAT SHE WAS ENCOURAGED TO DRINK A LITTLE OYSTER BROTH TO SETTLE HER STOMACH. SHE IS SAID TO HAVE TRIED A SPOONFUL OR TWO, BUT THEN REFUSED THE REST. THERE IS HOWEVER, EVIDENCE THAT AT ONE POINT IN HER LIFE MRS. WHITE MOST LIKELY ATE SOME OYSTERS. IN 1882, WHEN SHE WAS LIVING AT HEALDSBURG, CALIFORNIA, SHE WROTE A LETTER TO HER DAUGHTER-IN-LAW, MARY KELSEY WHITE, IN OAKLAND, IN WHICH SHE MADE THE FOLLOWING REQUEST: "Mary, if you can get me a good box of herrings, fresh ones, please do so. These last ones that Willie got are bitter and old. If you can buy cans, say, half a dozen cans, of good tomatoes, please do so. We shall need them. If you can get a few cans of good oysters, get them." {Manuscript Releases #852 } That is all the information that is available about Mrs. White using oysters!! Critics (like the ones Dr. Hill PARROTS) are quick to jump to conclusions about WHY she used oysters, yet are usually engaged in wild speculation that are often condemnatory, and usually have nothing definitive to disprove the fact that she might just have been using oysters as a medical substance, considering its high zinc properties that fight disease, as now fully researched and proven over 100 years *AFTER E.G. Whites time . Only fifty years ago, or so, was zinc discovered by Dr. Ananda Prasad, a nutrition chemist at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan (USA) as being critical to health; as a builder of the immune system, as needed in the function of the brain and nervous system, and helpful as a supplement in fighting certain diseases and ailments. Who can disprove Mrs. White did not also have advanced knowledge of this property of zinc as most highly concentrated in oysters, and hence treated oysters, like doctors did at the time, as a medical substance? I see nothing to discount that possibility. Knowing what I know about the advanced scientific knowledge that was granted to Mrs. White, a girl woman with limited *initial education (THIRD GRADE EDUCATION), I am almost certain she used oysters with a knowledge of its medicinal properties, at a time when zinc and its high concentration in oysters was not scientifically researched until long after her time. I am of the view that if God spoke through her health message, then, no doubt, she was way ahead of her time in knowing that the doctors were right about oysters (i.e. its high zinc property being helpful medicinally, since it is found in highest concentration in oysters). LIKE I SAID BEFORE, if alcohol was normally prohibited by the Bible for normal dietary consumption, yet the Bible writer advised a Christian of the New Testament to use alcoholic wine for medicinal properties or for the stomach sake (i.e. to ease a medical condition; 1 Timothy 5:23), then I see NO problem with E.G. White administering oysters for a medical purpose. Snake venom normally kills, yet when applied medically, as anti-venom, it can and does save lives medically. Pigs

are forbidden as normal food by God, yet it is scientifically discovered that pigs have a high concentration of insulin in its their stomach, which is extracted and used to medically fight diabetes. God made some things for medicinal value; not for normal consumption in the diet. I guess Dr. Hill (and the critics he PARROTS) never saw the above possibility being a reasonable explanation for Mrs. White using oysters in her older years (when it is now discovered, many years later, that the elderly have difficulty absorbing zinc from normal diet, and need it in high concentrations). Again I echo the words of Proverbs 18:17: (BBE) The man who first puts his cause before the judge seems to be in the right; but then his neighbour comes and puts his cause in its true light." "(CEV) You may think you have won your case in court, until your opponent speaks" Often, there is more to certain events and happenings than meets the eye. July 4 at 6:20am Edited Like

o
Derrick Gillespie RESPONSE # 5: REGARDING DR. HILL ON MRS. WHITE'S COUNSELS ABOUT MEAT AS A STAPLE AND "ANIMALISM": Dr. Hill made much ado about Mrs. White's emphasis on *MUCH meat eating strengthening "animalism", or "lustful propensities". Here is where he demonstrated his tendency at times to turn his questions into conclusions, or queries not answered into a reason for rejecting a position. I find that approach to be far from compelling for me for a number of reasons: 1. First, as it concerns Mrs. White contending that meat eating strengthens "animalism", or influences the behavior to be like animals in some senses (e.g. sexuality controlled by pure instinct; not reason), he totally ignores Mrs. White's emphasis on the possible effects of eating meat as a "STAPLE", or one's diet consisting "LARGELY" of flesh, evidenced by him asking questions like "If I eat a *little meat [chicken, goat] how do I behave?". So he sought to oppose her teaching by ridiculing what she said while not even quoting her properly in context. 2. Dr. Hill forgets that if God's initial ideal for man was a meatless diet (Gen. 1:29-31), and that if God fed Israel with manna for forty years and was angered when they lusted for flesh (Numbers 11:1-34 with Ps. 106:13-15), and if the diet in future Paradise will no doubt return to the original ideal as God initially intended (Isaiah 11:6-9 and Isaiah 65:25), then what's there to defeat the strong possibility that there is more to meat eating (as a staple), i.e. it being NOT ideal for body and soul, than we may now realize? God knows best, and who's to say, as knowledge increases more and more, that certain new things will not be probably discovered and proven about the effects of flesh on the system than is now presently recognized? 3. If for hundreds, yea, thousand of years "unclean" meat was denounced by God, yet humans are just beginning to learn scientifically of the dangers of pork on the health, for instance (with the high levels of toxins inherent in the flesh, the difficulty for the system to digest it, and its connection to a weakened health system), then who's to say greater scientific knowledge will not later reveal that by consuming much animal meat (with all its high content of animal hormones which drive animal instinct) we can have our natures at the hormonal level impacted "animalistically"? Science at the moment is far from perfect, and hence is both an imperfect yet a growing body of knowledge, and by the very nature of science it demands being open to further knowledge which may be discovered via research. I learned this principle well, when it is considered that only lately the real connection between zinc-deficiency and a myriad of diseases which can result was made (remembering how zinc is NOW DISCOVERED to be crucial to the operation of the brain, nervous system, and the proper functioning of the immune system, and that its concentration in semen can result in zinc-deficiency if masturbation is excessively practiced and the lost zinc is not sufficiently replaced in the correct foods rich in that substance). Sometimes we must recognize that truth is not readily seen for what it is when it is presented. 4. Finally, science cannot prove or disprove the effects of certain things on the spirituality (e.g. such as engaging in selfish and self-centered sexual activities, such as masturbation), since that dimension of human existence is not subject to the laws and methods of science and the test tube. But we must trust the OVERARCHING PRINCIPLE that if God, for instance, initially left flesh out of the diet of man, then there must be a whole host of reasons for this wisdom, and hence there is much more to learn scientifically about it not being ideal. Incidentally, if God also made plain that "it is better to marry than to burn" (1 Cor. 7:9), then it is plain that masturbation is not God's ideal plan for sexual fulfillment, but rather a loving heterosexual relationship of mutual love involving the sharing of bodies and soul (and again, science lacks the ability to give proper directives on this spiritual dimension of human sexuality).

IT IS UPON THE ABOVE BASIS THAT I REJECT DR. HILL'S APPROACH TO MRS. WHITE'S COUNSELS ON THE MATTER (S), AND FEEL SAFER TO TRUST THE "WISDOM" THAT STAYS ON GOD'S SIDE...APPEALING TO THE ORIGINAL IDEAL OF A MEATLESS DIET , OR AT LEAST USING MEAT SPARINGLY (AND, OF COURSE, AVOIDING MASTURBATION)!! June 17 at 3:30pm Edited Like

o
Derrick Gillespie RESPONSE # 6: REGARDING DR. HILL'S CONTINUED CHARGE OF PLAGIARISM IN MRS. WHITE'S WRITINGS Dr. Hill repeated his plagiarism charge against Mrs. White in his part 2 appearance on "Religious Hardtalk", yet continued to disregard certain crucial considerations. While admitting the SDA Church engaged the services of an independent legal expert (Vincent Ramik) on the matter of plagiarism, to CANDIDLY determine, both LEGALLY and OBJECTIVELY, if the charges leveled against Mrs. White's writings were with merit, yet he IGNORED the validity of the legal findings which exonerated her on LEGAL grounds, and then sought to still charge her with "moral and ethical" guilt connected to plagiarism. But I find that to be unfair and unkind for several reasons: 1. Plagiarism is a LEGAL matter, and someone is not guilty of it outside of the arena of LEGAL considerations, and so if a leading LEGAL expert on patents, copyright and plagiarism issues in the United States did extensive research on the issue, and objectively and LEGALLY determined that mere copying or "borrowing" from secondary sources by Mrs. White does not LEGALLY constitute plagiarism, then it is inconsequential to be then charging her with "moral and ethical" guilt on that same issue...and doing so merely by expressing an OPINION NOT GROUNDED IN LEGAL EXPERTISE ON THE MATTER!! 2. Mrs. White indeed DENIED she plagiarized in the LEGAL sense, and that is a matter that must be proven LEGALLY before she can be deemed culpable of "moral and ethical" guilt. So to simply bring to the table evidence of SEEMING similarity between her writings and the expressions of others is also inconsequential, since the legal expert on plagiarism ALREADY LEGALLY expressed that this would not in itself constitute what plagiarism really is. If borrowing or copying aspects of the writings of others to better express what one wants to say presents "moral and ethical" guilt, then how come the Bible writers would be considered free of this guilt by Dr Hill and the critics he PARROTS, in light of the fact that they also copied/borrowed from other writers (even pagan authors) to express what the Bible now deems to be "inspired"? 3. Despite man-made copyright laws never became established until the early 18th century, if Bible writers like John borrowed the concept of God or divinity expressed as the "Logos" or "the Word" from pagan Greek writers like Plato, if Bible writers like Paul borrowed literary expressions from pagan writers like Epimenides (among others), if New Testament Bible writers expressed Biblical concepts like the grave, by using pagan Greek concepts like "Hades" (see "Hades" in Greek mythology), and if Bible writers like Jude even used and quoted aspects of the uninspired writings of the Apocrypha (book of Enoch), how is mere copying and borrowing (even from pagan and uninspired sources) "morally" and "ethically" wrong? If it is, then the Bible itself would likewise be 'guilty' of copying and borrowing, despite it saying "ALL SCRIPTURES IS GIVEN BY THE INSPIRATION OF GOD" (even the expressions borrowed)!! But Dr. Hill would not be willing to say the Bible and its writers are so guilty, but yet still continue to ignore all those realities and level charges of impropriety against Ms. White for doing what many Bible writers themselves did. 4. Truth be told? By the very Bible itself it is demonstrated that mere borrowing and copying is not problematic in itself, and even Bible writers gleaned gems of worthwhile expressions from not just their own religious colleagues in a religious community, but even from pagan writers, and some even used questionable sources like the Apocrypha to color their expressions...expressions that the Bible itself NOW consider as "inspired", i.e. as it was finally expressed by the Bible writers but through 'helps' from other writers and their copied expressions. 5. If Mrs. White first admitted that she never knew much about copyright principles of operation (and initially left the issues up to her literary assistants), but then upon being strongly reminded of the issues of copyright later demonstrated she was then made aware of it, this offers no real problems for me. Since copyright principles were relatively recent inventions of the law in the Western world (see Wikipedia on "Copyright"), and was just being established in Mrs. White's time in America, it is conceivable she never at first fully understood all the LEGAL principles involved. The critics that Dr. Hill PARROTS would certainly give no allowance for this reality. But I can understand when a critic wants to go for the jugular, in order to discredit someone, being reasonable and giving someone the benefit of the doubt normally goes out the window. But what's really new? WITH ALL THE ABOVE BORNE IN MIND, I CANNOT BUT REJECT THE CLAIMS OF DR. HILL AND THE CRITICS HE PARROTS

ON THIS ISSUE. See my earlier posts on the issue here: http://www.facebook.com/derric.../posts/10201337959957298... http://www.facebook.com/derric.../posts/10201337959957298... (P.S. I WILL HEREAFTER CONCLUDE MY SERIES OF RESPONSES BY RESPONDING TO DR. HILL'S SECOND ATTACK UPON THE 1844 MESSAGE OF INVESTIGATIVE JUDGMENT BY SD ADVENTISTS. KEEP WATCHING THIS THREAD).

Derrick Gillespie SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISM VS "RELIGIOUS HARDTALK": Jamaican SDAs were probably sha...See More June 7 at 8:31am Edited Like Remove Preview

o
Derrick Gillespie FINAL RESPONSE (#7): REGARDING DR. HILL'S CONTINUED ATTACK UPON SD ADVENTISM'S "INVESTIGATIVE JUDGMENT" MESSAGE Dr. Hill also repeated his attack upon the doctrine of the "Investigative Judgment" of SD Adventism in his part 2 appearance on "Religious Hardtalk", yet again continued to disregard certain crucial considerations. TO LAY CHARGES AGAINST A CERTAIN ASSERTION OR VIEWPOINT, OR TO OPPOSE IT, LAYS THE 'BURDEN OF PROOF' AT THE FEET OF THE OPPOSITION, AND NOTHING HAS YET BEEN SUBMITTED BY DR. HILL, OR ANY OF THE CRITICS HE PARROTS, TO CONVINCE ME HE HAS A SOLID OR FOOLPROOF CASE ON THIS MATTER. Why do I say so? Several considerations make his viewpoints, or those that he PARROTS, less than convincing or absolutely factual!! Here are a few: 1. He makes the claim that a certain number of top SDA scholars, who allegedly met for five years (in the early 1980s), could not (it is alleged) give evidence to defend the "Investigative Judgment" doctrine as directly related to Daniel 8:14, and what it's context demands. Truth be told? Dr. Hill failed to give the full facts as they do exist in the history of SD Adventism. Within the same period he alluded to (1980-1985) the SDA Church established a committee of SDA's top scholars, called the "Daniel and the Revelation Committee" (DARCOM), and after meeting from 1981-1992 it PRODUCED A SEVEN VOLUME SERIES OF OVER 2400 PAGES, HAVING ADVENTISM'S TOP SCHOLARS (AMONG OTHER THINGS) DEFENDING THE DOCTRINE. Dr. Hill and the critics may belittle/reject the DARCOM publications, but must not ignore them as the Church having several of its top scholars recently reaffirming (among other things) Adventism's teachings on Daniel 8:14 and the Investigative Judgment message. Let me quote a report on the DARCOM affirming what I just said: "They [the DARCOM seven volume series] contain a collection of biblical studies prepared by a large number of [SD] Adventist theologians who firmly believe that our teachings on the sanctuary are biblically based." (Angel Manuel Rodrguez Nov. 1997. Response To "The Investigative Judgment: A Bible Based Doctrine?) Hence, for Dr. Hill to quote the one or two SD scholars who may have a 'difficulty' with SD Adventism's view on Daniel 8:14, this ignores the reality of the above about the DARCOM report. He also seem to think that a polemic which uses dissent from 'insiders' is a foolproof method of undermining a teaching. It may seem formidable, but certainly not unbeatable, since if even the very Bible has 'insiders' to Christianity itself (i.e. liberal theologians and modern new age 'Christian' scholars) undermining the Bible, and has it increasingly being presented BY LIBERAL CHRISTIANS as having many contradictions, discrepancies, myths, and unfulfilled prophecies, and even unscientific claims, then what's really new about 'insiders' dissenting to SD Adventism's teachings? If God gave the Jews the "oracles" of truth for very many centuries, yet many of them still rejected the Christian/ultimate Messiah, and today Judaism itself is an opposing force to the teachings of Christianity, and if its top Jewish scholars and its Talmudic writings give no support to the main teachings of Christianity, then why be so bothered by a few scholars having a difficulty with certain aspects of our teaching, i.e. *IF THEY CAN STILL

BE DEMONSTRATED AS BIBLICALLY VALID? I declare they certainly can, and the opposing voices have given me nothing in the absolute to absolutely disprove what SDAs believe to be biblical. Let me now demonstrate from the Bible how ineffective are the viewpoints being raised by Dr. Hill and others he PARROTS! 2. The Bible itself has proven the opposing voices (obligated to bring the 'burden of proof') to not be convincing enough in the following areas: a] The book of Hebrews gives no absolute proof that Jesus has been serving withing the second apartment of the heavenly sanctuary since his ascension (or before 1844, as SDAs believe), and the term "within the veil" in the book of Hebrews, BEING AMBIGUOUS IN NATURE, offers no absolute refutation of the doctrine as taught by SDAs. In fact, since even the expression "the presence of the Lord" also does not always mean being in the Most Holy Place (as seen clearly in Gen. 4:16, Job 1:12 and Psalm 51:11), and since God's throne does have wheels, and is in fact movable, as seen in Daniel 7:9, and since throne scenes in heaven does at times involve scenes connected to the outer or Holy Place (e.g. the alter and the SYMBOLIC seven branched lamp being in front of the throne of God in Rev. 8:3, Revelation 1:4, 4:5, and 5:6) then the opposition from the critics lack teeth. These mentioned issues I will further demonstrate and expound on hereafter (citing how even the opposing scholars, even Desmond Ford himself, unwittingly proves how ambiguous the term "the veil" really is, for instance). But suffice it to say here that Hebrews 9:23,24 makes plain ( in the KJV and many other translations) that Christ was to relate to "PATTERNS" AND "THINGS" (PLURAL) IN "HEAVEN ITSELF", and not just one room of the Most Holy place, and its one item, the ark (BOTH SINGULAR SUBJECTS), but he entered in the "holy place" (Hebrews 9:12) or the sanctuary as a whole (Hebrews 8:2). IT WAS THE ENTIRE EARTHLY SANCTUARY THAT HAD ALL THE ITEMS "WHICH *ARE FIGURES [OR PATTERNS] OF THE TRUE", indicating that where Jesus started to serve "IN HEAVEN ITSELF" had ALL THE PROTOTYPE "PATTERNS" [PLURAL] of the earthly sanctuary; not just the one room of the Most Holy place being a pattern (singular), as the true prototype. By the very reference to "FIGURES/PATTERNS" of the true, and to "HEAVEN itself" indicate that the place Jesus first started to serve upon his ascension was filled with "FIGURES" OR "PATTERNS", and no wonder Hebrews 9:23 makes plain that it would be all "THINGS" (PLURAL) in the heavenly sanctuary that would later be SYMBOLICALLY "purified"; NOT JUST THE ONE ROOM OF THE MOST HOLY PLACE, AND NOT JUST THE ONE ITEM OF FURNISHING IN IT (SINGULAR). Even the very language of Hebrews 9:23,24 makes plain Jesus was to serve in the entire heavenly sanctuary with all it "PATTERNS" (PLURAL); he was not just to serve in relation to one room, or one item of furnishing, but IN RELATION TO PLURAL SUBJECTS AND "THINGS" OR "PATTERNS". Many forget that the High priest served right throughout the year in the earthly temple AS A WHOLE; not just on the one day he entered the Most Holy place annually. Thus Jesus is BOTH to serve as a normal priest would in the heavenly sanctuary (no wonder his priesthood has been for nearly 2000 years so far), as well as the High Priest in the shorter period covered by the final segment of ministry in the Most Holy Place. Hebrews proves his heavenly ministry (AS BOTH THE LAMB AND OUR HEAVENLY PRIEST) ignores no aspect of the earthly temple as a whole, with all its "PATTERNS" OR "FIGURES" (PLURAL). b] The fact that Jesus in Matthew 24:15 and Luke 21:20 IDENTIFIED the power bringing "*THE abomination [transgression] of desolation" to be Rome, totally obliterates the popular viewpoint that Antiochus Epiphanes (a Syrian king) fulfilled "THE" (specific article) "abomination of desolation" that was prophesied by Daniel. Antiochus never brought "desolation", neither to the temple (since he left it standing), nor to Jerusalem (it remained in place), nor to Israel (since the Jews rose up in successful rebellion against the invasion of Antiochus, by way of the Maccabees)!! And so he cannot be the agent of "desolation", but rather the empire of Rome which came nearly 200 years later! Once Rome appears in the picture as bringing the fulfillment of "THE" (specific article) related "transgression [abomination] of desolation" prophecies of Daniel 8 and 9, then it makes it plain that the time frame of the prophecy of Daniel 8 and 9 was to run into a long time period represented in symbol as "2300 days". In fact, the very fact that Revelation 13, and 17 pictures IN SYMBOL a Roman power with the "body of a leopard", i.e. it being largely characteristic of the features of the Grecian power that it came after (remember Greece was the leopard power in symbol; Daniel 7), this totally nullifies all those viewpoints which believe that a Roman "little horn" power could not have arisen out of a Grecian empire depicted in Daniel 8. All notable history books depict Rome as a "Greco-Roman" empire, simply because it was so "Greek" at its core in so may ways.... and this is very telling of what Daniel saw in vision long before Rome came on the scene, especially with Jesus himself identifying Rome in Matthew 24:15 as the real power fulfilling the "abomination of desolation" prophecies of Daniel. c] In addition, no one can disprove that the question being answered by Daniel 8:14 was literally asking "HOW LONG THE VISION?" or "UNTIL WHEN IS THE VISION?", and that (according to the SDA viewpoint) ONLY *ONE VISION WAS IN VIEW (not two), and that the time period, as *SYMBOLICALLY presented, applies to the TIME SCOPE of the entire vision Daniel got in Daniel 8; not just the aspects itemized as samples of that vision in Daniel 8:13. ABSOLUTELY NO ONE HAS YET BEEN ABLE TO DO THAT AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED!! AND I AM SPEAKING WITH ABSOLUTE HONESTY WHEN I SAY SO. Until they can, then the SDA viewpoint remains valid. d] No one has shown, except by eisogesis (reading into the text) that the question in Daniel 8:13 does not (or cannot) allow for the Roman power being the "abomination [transgression] of desolation" (see again Matthew 24:15), and to be the one prophesied to "trample" on the truth, and to even obscure and "cast down" the "place" (role and function) of the heavenly

sanctuary, and, that if it did "defile" any sanctuary it was to have been the *earthly or Jewish one in the literal sense (in AD. 70; the same Rome was later responsible for "defiling" the Church as the spiritual sanctuary that it took up residence in (2 Thess. 2:4) in the spiritual sense (by way of the Roman Catholic power, the Papacy). In addition, no one has yet ABSOLUTELY disproved the SDA teaching (except by assumption they have) that the prophecy was not all-embracing of Rome's relationship to all these sanctuaries. None!! [CONTINUED BELOW] July 4 at 6:30am Edited Like

o
Derrick Gillespie [CONTINUED FROM ABOVE] e] No one has been able to overturn (try as they might) the clear link between the visions of Daniel 2, Daniel 7 and Daniel 8 and 9, or disprove they being roughly parallel in their scope, since they all point to prophecies that run from their starting points from within either the time of the empires of Babylon or Medo-Persia, and all extend to the time of "the end" (see Daniel 8:17, 19), i.e. when God's people and his cause are finally vindicated, and when God sets up his eternal kingdom. In as much as the visions of Daniel 2 and 7 BOTH end with God's kingdom set up (established) which vindicates his people and destroys opposing forces with a God-centred event, so too the final opposing force or "little horn" power of Daniel 8 is "broken without hand" (Daniel 8:25), i.e. by A DIVINE EVENT OR BY DIVINE INTERVENTION! The same way the scope of the visions in Daniel 2 and 7 ended with divine events (the kingdom of God established ultimately), the same is true for Daniel 8..."the sanctuary" is "cleansed" or "vindicated", or "set right" (Daniel 8:14) as the ultimate divine event that ends the scope of the vision. Now, by no stretch of the imagination can it be countenanced that the Grecian king Antiochus Epiphanes (i.e. a single person; not a whole kingdom as normally symbolized by the word "king" or "kings") operated until or within the period referred to as the time of "the end" (but Rome, pagan and papal, certainly does and will), nor was Antiochus' death/demise evidenced to be the result of being "broken without hand" or by divine intervention (but Rome, in its Papal stage, certainly will be; 2 Thess. 2:4,8). If it is that the final opposing force in Daniel 8 is to be dispatched by divine intervention, and then God's kingdom finally established for good, then we must ask, is the Daniel 8:14 event, described as the "cleansing of the sanctuary" (or with it being "set right" or "vindicated", according to some translations) is that in any way an event that can signal divine judgment and God's kingdom/people finally vindicated and set up thereafter? It certainly can (as I will explain below). f) Daniel the prophet probably never realized that there would be another sanctuary in operation long after the earthly one that would be first rebuilt after Babylon had destroyed it, and then totally destroyed by Rome in A.D. 70; with Rome being the real "desolating" power or "THE" (specific article) "abomination of desolation"; Matthew 24:15. And so Daniel probably had his eye only on the earthly sanctuary (no wonder he never fully understood all of the details of the single vision between Daniel 8 and 9). Now, if the scope of the *vision (SINGULAR) of Daniel 8 and 9 (just like the ones in Daniel 2 and 7) extend to the time of "the end", then it is plain that the LITERAL sanctuary that would be "cleansed" or "set right" would be the one still existing/operating up to the time of "the end"...THE HEAVENLY SANCTUARY (and MAYBE TOO the spiritual sanctuary or temple, the Church, in the second instance). Seeing that Hebrews 9:22, 23 makes plain that even the heavenly sanctuary, of "necessity," needs to be SYMBOLICALLY "cleansed" or "purified", then it must mean the heavenly sanctuary had a matching GOD-GIVEN ceremony of "cleansing" in the earthly sanctuary that patterned it (if even in less glorious terms). The only GOD-GIVEN ceremony that could be so identified is the "day of atonement" ceremony, or Yom Kippur, as recorded in Leviticus 16. But how could this find its counterpart in the heavenly sanctuary and be also an event of judgment that would signal the ultimate demise of the "little horn" power that was to be "broken without hand"? The Jews themselves have long seen Yom Kippur (the day of atonement in Leviticus 16) as closely tied to a day of judgment (see Yom Kippur online at this link: http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/15117-yom-kippur), and that is ironic, seeing that just as Daniel 7 shows a vindication of God's people AFTER a judgment scene, which results in the "little horn" power's ultimate demise (Daniel 7:9, 10, 26,27), Daniel 8 also brings into focus a "cleansing" of the only remaining LITERAL sanctuary at the time of "the end", and that too results in the "little horn" power being "broken without hand". Thus SDAs firmly believe that the heavenly ceremony of "cleansing" is also one of judgment that looks into the records of people's lives, and determines their final destinies, and neither Dr. Hill nor the critics he PARROTS will be able to defeat that with their polemics. g] God has appointed ONLY ONE "day", or event, or period (not more than one), for *JUDICIALLY judging/assessing *BOTH the wicked and the righteous *BEFORE establishing his glorious kingdom and punishing the wicked at Jesus' second coming (SEE Acts 17:31, 2 Cor. 5:10 with Ecclesiastes 3:17). When Jesus returns he would have rewards for all (Rev. 22:12)...including the judicial punishment of the anti-Christ power in 2 Thess. 2:8, and hence THIS JUDGMENT OF ASSESSMENT MUST TAKE PLACE WITHIN THE TIME OF "THE END" BUT BEFORE JESUS RETURNS (see Revelation 11:1, 18, 19). From the prophecy of Daniel 8:14, SDAs have learned that when the prophetic period covered by the entire vision of

Daniel 8 (see Daniel 8:13) is complete (expressed in symbolic language as "2300 days", but meaning years) then an event of sanctuary "cleansing" would take place, and would also be a period of divine Judgment in heaven (the same one identified in Daniel 7:9-11); one that is "Investigative" in nature, that would result in not just the demise of the opposing little horn power, but also a judging and vindication of God's people by way of their Advocate AND High Priest (Jesus Christ) at his throne. This is what "1844" is all about (the year that ends the period covered by the singular vision of Daniel 8 and 9) and has a more solid footing in the Bible than Dr. Hill and the critics he PARROTS do realize. HOW MUCH CLEARER COULD JOHN THE REVELATOR SEE THE TRUTH IN VISION (IN REVELATION 11:1, 18,19) THAT THE JUDGMENT/ASSESSMENT OF ALL IS ALSO TIED TO THE OPENING OF THE MOST HOLY PLACE AND THE ARK OF THE COVENANT BEING SHOWN? ONLY ON THE DAY OF ATONEMENT OR YOM KIPPUR WAS THE INNER APARTMENT OF THE TEMPLE VIEWED BY THE HIGH PRIEST, AND YET HERE IS JOHN SHOWING THE HEAVENLY COUNTERPART, AND ITS INNER SANCTUM BEING SYMBOLICALLY "OPENED", AND THAT BEING TIED TO A DAY OF JUDGMENT ON ALL. I think that is rather telling, and gives credence to the Jewish Rabbinical view that Yom Kippur is also tied to judgment/assessment of peoples lives. The Jewish Encyclopedia I cited at the link above puts it this way: "In rabbinic Judaism the Day of Atonement [Yom Kippur] completes the penitential period of ten days...[with the] the annual day of judgment , when all creatures pass in review before the searching eye of Omniscience..." Is it any wonder John the Revelator also ties the opening of the Most Holy Place with the "TIME" APPOINTED (SEE AGAIN ACTS 17:31) for judging ALL people of earth in Revelation 11: 18,19, INCLUDING GOD'S OWN PEOPLE? To those too blind to see it will not be obvious, but the SD Adventists have long seen the connection and will continue to preach it no matter the fierce opposition from within and without the Church. Some assume that because the book of Hebrews does not specifically address the prophetic issue of the sanctuary "cleansing", then it denies the "INVESTIGATIVE JUDGMENT" doctrine as understood by SDAs, but that is a paltry polemic against the SDA teaching since Hebrews was *NOT a book meant to explain prophetic issues in detail, but it simply gave a sweeping view of how Jesus ministers in THE true heavenly sanctuary (AS BOTH THE SACRIFICIAL "LAMB" AND PRIEST, INCLUDING BEING THE DAILY ANTI-TYPICAL PRIEST AS WELL AS HIGH PRIEST), and that, no doubt, ALL the earthly symbols/figures in the earthly sanctuary would eventually find fulfillment in the ongoing ministry of Jesus in the heavenly one ((ALL IN THEIR OWN TIME, OF COURSE). [CONTINUED IN THE APPENDIX BELOW]

ATONEMENT, DAY OF - JewishEncyclopedia.com jewishencyclopedia.com Complete contents the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia. June 19 at 1:40am Edited Like Remove Preview

o
Derrick Gillespie APPENDIX: Seeing that so much is tied to whether or not upon his ascension Jesus' ministry started first in the Most Holy Place segment of ministry, it is crucial that the teaching in the book of Hebrews, and the terms "holy place", "most holy place" and "within the veil" be explored, to not just ascertain what is taught by Hebrews, but also to ascertain what is NOT said as well. Many fail to see that the term "the veil" in Hebrews is ambiguous in meaning in the Greek, just as is the terms which refers to the sanctuary, as even Dr. Desmond Ford, the famous SDA dissident, personally admits when he said: "[Hebrews 9:12] He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves, but he entered the most holy place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. .... the word that is here translated "most holy place" is literally "holies." .....The word itself can mean the sanctuary as a whole, or it can mean the first apartment, or it can mean the second apartment. You can prove nothing from the Greek, because it has these possibilities..." -Desmond Ford, The Investigative Judgment: Theological Milestone or Historical Necessity?

Here Desmond Ford, a staunch critic of Adventism's doctrine of the Sanctuary, admits freely, and rightly so, that the plural term "holies", sometimes translated "holy place", other times "holy places" (or from "ta hagion" or "ta hagia" in Greek) is *AMBIGUOUS, and at times it means the sanctuary as a whole, sometimes the outer apartment, and other times the inner apartment, so it is CONTEXT that must be appealed to in order to ascertain meaning. This ambiguity of the word is similar to the AMBIGUOUS word "law" in the Bible (from the Hebrew "torah", or the Greek "nomos"), and hence context is crucial. IN THE KING JAMES VERSION THE HEBREW 9:12 PASSAGE READS THUS: "Heb 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the *holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us." Here the same Greek word "ta hagion" is translated as "the HOLY PLACE", while in Hebrews 9:24 (in the KJV) it is translated as "the HOLY PLACES" that Jesus "entered", and further Jesus is said to have "entered into HEAVEN itself" (so the term can even mean that as well). With all that ambiguity, no one should IMPOSE a meaning on the word and be dogmatic about unless it can be clearly verified by CONTEXT. I find that many times where it is argued by critics of Adventism, that Jesus was ministering in the Most Holy Place (INNER apartment) of the heavenly sanctuary ever since his ascension (and not just the sanctuary as a whole, or in heaven itself) it is based on assumption and eisogesis; not foolproof evidence withing the text itself....and I'll prove it with clear evidence from the book of Hebrews itself, even making reference to and explaining the likewise ambiguous term "within the veil", with support from other parts of the Bible. This discussion is crucial, since it will prove why the SDA viewpoint has biblical support in the face of the AMBIGUOUS nature of these terms under consideration. [APPENDIX CONTINUED BELOW] July 4 at 6:41am Edited Like

o
Derrick Gillespie TO SEE THE AMBIGUITY OF THE TERM "WITHIN THE VEIL" AND ITS IMPLICATIONS, SEE MY EARLIER EXPRESSED VIEWPOINTS AT THESE LINKS: http://www.facebook.com/derric.../posts/10201337959957298... http://www.facebook.com/derric.../posts/10201337959957298...

Derrick Gillespie SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISM VS "RELIGIOUS HARDTALK": Jamaican SDAs were probably sha...See More June 12 at 8:12am Edited Like Remove Preview

o
Derrick Gillespie APPENDIX (CONTINUED): Psalm 80:1 is, by all intent and purposes it seems, a poetic expression of God "dwelling" between the cherubims, but not a literal statement of Him always being immovably fixed above the ark itself. GOD IS TOO BIG FOR THAT RESTRICTION!! Even in Heaven He is presented as not always sitting on His throne, but can come in from elsewhere, as in Daniel 7: 9,10, to take up His position in a ceremony, AFTER HIS THRONE IS PUT IN PLACE.

Also, since the Greek expression complex for the Most Holy Place (the Holy of Holies), "hagia hagion", was used only once in the entire New Testament (in Heb. 9:3), then we can easily track the use of the terms "hagion", used for the entire sanctuary itself or just a holy place like Heaven, and the use of "hagia", used only for the first apartment of the sanctuary. Now, interestingly, I found out (by doing a careful review of the Greek), that all places where it is claimed that Jesus "entered" [PAST TENSE] into the Most Holy Place into the presence of the Father is based on speculation, because THE EXPRESSION COMPLEX, "HAGIA HAGION" IS MISSING!! The expression used about Christ in the sanctuary in the presence of the Father is always "hagion" or "ta hagia", which means simply either Heaven itself, or just the sanctuary on a whole (e.g. Heb. 9:8, and Heb. 10:19). Coupled with that is the fact that Jesus is said to have "entered" into "the holy place" (singular) in Hebrews 9:12 and into "holy places" (plural) in Hebrews 9:24, further MAKING IT VAGUE AS TO WHICH COMPARTMENT HE "ENTERED" UPON HIS ENTRY INTO THE HEAVENLY SANCTUARY....thus making the issue not as clearcut as some think!! Also, since the much debated expression, "the [temple] veil", needed a qualifying term i.e. "*after [or within] the *SECOND veil" (Hebrews 9:3) so as to clinch a more specific meaning, and since there were two veils to the temple, it is therefore not conclusive that Heb. 6:19 was referring specifically to behind the "veil" of the Most Holy Place when it was written, since even the writer of Hebrews SYMBOLICALLY uses the term "the veil" to mean Jesus' flesh (Heb. 10:20). It is obvious that to be in the Temple demanded that one pass through, and is behind or within the first "veil" to the door of the Temple. Thus the expression in Heb. 6:19 could be referring to being "within" or behind any of the two "veils", since Jesus was not a High Priest BEFORE his incarnation, as He must have been made human to even minister in the Heavenly sanctuary in the first place (Heb. 5). So his incarnation, obedience, and crucifixion opened the way, or gave Him the right to His ministry in the Heavenly sanctuary, that is, He earned the right to be minister "within the veil" or just simply the sanctuary itself. There is no evidence in the expression itself, i.e. "within the veil" in Heb. 6:19, that this meant SPECIFICALLY "The Most Holy Place", and not just within the sanctuary itself!! July 4 at 6:45am Edited Like

o
Derrick Gillespie (APPENDIX CONTINUED): It is quite interesting that in Rev. 8:3, Rev. 1:4 and 4:5 the presence of the alter and the symbolic seven branched lamp (representing the Holy Spirit) is seen directly BEFORE (literally 'in front of') the Throne of God and the Lamb (the same throne as in Rev. 3:21). ON EARTH (A PATTERN OF THE HEAVENLY SANCTUARY) THIS "LAMP" AND THE ALTER WAS IN THE FIRST APARTMENT OF THE SANCTUARY, and this is compelling evidence that John's visions of Heaven before the arrival of the Judgment scene (of Daniel 7:9, 10, and Rev. 11:18,19) seem to place God's throne in the first apartment of the Heavenly sanctuary. I also find it very gripping that only when the Judgment "TIME" was introduced in Rev. 11:18, 19 (i.e. "the TIME HAS COME") that John made reference to the Ark of the Covenant FOUND IN THE INNER APARTMENT, thus strongly indicating that this apartment was opened ONLY when INVESTIGATIVE Judgment arrived (which did not cover the whole Christian era, but a specifically appointed time- Acts 17:31). All the above described, along with the fact that the Godhead's 'Presence' can ALSO be represented by the shew bread in the first apartment, makes compelling the established SDA viewpoint that prior to the Investigative Judgment of 1844 God had His throne in the first apartment (probably since the incarnation, who knows?) to accommodate the proper sequencing of the work of Jesus the true High Priest in the Heavenly sanctuary. Thus the signal of it being probably put back in place in the Most Holy Place only at the fulfilled time of the Judgment scene in Daniel 7:9 does seem to have merit. Another possibility is that His throne was never in this second apartment of the Heavenly, until the arrival of the Judgment scene, since the sanctuary was built around the salvation plan. Who knows? Remember that after salvation is complete there is no longer the need for the temple. John said in the New Earth he saw no temple!!! Think long and hard on that point, and consider that God needs no "Most Holy Place" at all times to fix His throne room. The writings of E.G. White, describes Jesus' ministerial "movement" as literally from one apartment to another in 1844, and because the Biblical evidence to FULLY disprove this possibility is just not there (despite the protestations of the critics), and because the SDA argumentation to this effect is indeed compelling, then I will choose to believe that it may just have been so as Mrs. White's writings described.

July 4 at 6:48am Edited Like

o
Derrick Gillespie IN CLOSING, LET ME RECOMMEND TWO THINGS TO YOU DEAR READER, IF YOU WISH TO HEAR MORE FROM SDAs; NOT JUST THE CRITICS: 1. The HELPFUL website "ellenwhite answers.org" at : http://www.ellenwhiteanswers.org/...See More

Ellen White Answers www.ellenwhiteanswers.org Ellen White Answers sheds light on the real Ellen White and provides answers to the questions and critics June 12 at 8:20am Edited Like Remove Preview

o
Derrick Gillespie ATTENTION!! SEE MY NOW *COMPLETED RESPONSES TO DR. HILL'S APPEARANCE ON "RELIGIOUS HARDTALK", BY VIEWING ALL MY SERIES OF POSTS ABOVE. BE BLESSED AS YOU READ!! June 12 at 8:28am Like

o
Derrick Gillespie ATTENTION BOTH CRITICS OF SD ADVENTISM, AS WELL AS SD ADVENTISTS ON FACEBOOK. DID YOU READ ALL MY RESPONSES YET? YOU SHOULD, AND WITH AN OPEN MIND TOO!! June 22 at 7:09am Like

o
Derrick Gillespie HERE IS MY PART 1 RESPONSE LIVE ON TVJ (CLICK LINK): http://televisionjamaica.com/.../ReligiousHa.../Videos/29026

Religious Hardtalk - Religious televisionjamaica.com September 5 at 2:11pm Like Remove Preview

o
Derrick Gillespie HERE IS MY CONCLUSIVE APPEARANCE: http://www.televisionjamaica.com/.../Religio.../Videos/29348

Religious Hardtalk - Derrick Gillespie on the Ellen G White Issue Pt.2 www.televisionjamaica.com September 19 at 12:01am Like Remove Preview

o
Derrick Gillespie ATTENTION! October 6 at 9:27am Like

o
Derrick Gillespie Hope you have viewed the videos showing my TV response? See the links above. October 13 at 5:38am Like