Ellen White: Can her writings be trusted? Talk With Pastor Kevin Morgan 

@@jerrystilwell7666 Thanks brother 🙏

I heard she once said at a meeting, " that some sitting there will see the coming of the lord" but all then people are long gone. Can you explain please?

@@damirsavka836 context is always important. It was probably a conditional prophecy. There is the concept of conditional prophecy in Scripture. Or was it a reference to the Resurrection and Second Coming? I would have to see the full quote in context.

You haven't really talked to someone that's very learned. The problem with most people is that they don't know eschatology, they don't know hebrew, they have no idea about the Jewish culture, and they also don't understand the Jewish calendar. If I gave my toughest questions there's no way any Seventh-day Adventist is going to answer them. In my basic ideas before I believe anything about adventism today or any other time I want to step by step have them prove their selves before I believe the next thing they ask me to believe. And the problem is every single Seventh-day Adventist I ever talk to just accepted things without proof

I tried to have this discussion with Kevin Morgan and other Seventh-Day adventists, which is I want to pretend like we are teleported back to 1844 and this little group is coming up to us telling us that something's going to happen on October 22nd 1844. What I want to do is I want to start from the very beginning imagine if these people walked up to you what did they say to you that made you believe that they knew what they were talking about? And Kevin Morgan couldn't answer that because I was talking about the calendar showing contradictions. So that should make us question The Seventh-Day Adventist when they're showing us these calendars and they're saying one thing in their contradicting themselves. And Kevin Morgan couldn't really answer that and neither has any other Seventh Day Adventist

No he is not

@@danieloostendorp9286 the first two were responded to in the presentation itself. As far as the last, remember that Adventist doctrine is all from the Bible. Ellen White’s writings are a prophetic guide in accordance with Scripture. None of our doctrine originated with her. Our 28 Fundamental Beliefs are all Scriptural, unlike Sunday Sacredness, Irresistible grace, timeless eternity, purgatory, the natural immortality of the soul etc. etc.

@@michaelmirraministry8834 I asked Kevin . You answered none of the three questions.

@@danieloostendorp9286 maybe you didn't like the answers. They are right in the video. In the Bible we see see one book repeating info from another book, such as between the Gospels or Kings and Chronicles. We talk about this in the video.

@@danieloostendorp9286 Micah 4:1-3 borrowed from Isaiah 2:2-4. The scribe who compiled 2 Kings 18:20 also borrowed from Isaiah 36-39. Matthew and Luke borrowed heavily from Mark as well as from another common source. None of these ever acknowledged their borrowing. (See The S.D.A. Bible Commentary 5:178, 179) In fact, many scholars openly acknowledge that some 91 percent of the Gospel of Mark was copied by Matthew and Luke when they wrote their respective Gospels! IRWHW 50.9 Substantial parts of John’s Apocalypse-the Book of Revelation-are lifted bodily from the Book of Enoch, a pseudepigraphical work known to have been circulated some 150 years before John wrote the last book of the Bible; and even Jude borrowed a line (“Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints”) from the same source. IRWHW 50.14 From: Roger W. Coon's Inspiration/Revelation: What It Is and How It Works You can read it on the White Estate's website

​@@michaelmirraministry8834 To justify EG White plagiarizing.

Sounds like some author's I should read. I agree about the assumption behind the claim of inerrancy and the lack of falsifiability.

So, they may have won the case and he could afford to pay out, but the song didn't get taken down. You can still listen to it today, and I would venture to say that the effect of My Sweet Lord is different from He's So Fine. Before I discovered that it was to Krishna, I imagine singing it to Jesus. "I really want to know you, Lord."

@@kevinmorgan_truth : as a kid I had some sense of Harrison being into some form of Hinduism, so I couldn't understand why he was referring to, "Lord." I guess he meant well, and it was the only form of spirituality he could grasp ... I guess!!! Why did Hinduism and Buddhism appeal more to celebrities than Christianity? I don't know ... Anyways, I consider that you did far superior to "Daly" on "Myles" (Haha) channel - far better - and Myles demeanor just after the debate indicates to me that he regretted having Daly to challenge EGW. Note that Myles suggested that he would revisit the topic. Thanks for all your hard work. Trust me, it is much appreciated. Pastor Mirra, I know very well, and he has an unusually strong scriptural mind. People sometimes refer to Dr. Desmond Ford (who I met once - very personable), notwithstanding his errors to be unusually keen minded. When it comes to Scripture and the writings of EGW, as well as conventional philosophy and other matters, Pastor Mirra exceeds someone like Dr. Ford, but one may not know because his affect is that of a "normal guy." Persons like you and Pastor Mirra are the hope for a stronger, yet more diplomatic approach towards both conveying and defending the Adventist Church. Keep going in Christ's blessed name.

​@@ercb.7299I disagree . Desmond was a blessed scholar. The most knowledgeable teacher the church was ever blessed with. Shame on the Conference and his critics.

@@danieloostendorp9286 : again, I met the man. I was impressed by his demeanor. I also was blessed by his biblical scholarship and wouldn't be where I am apart from his scholarship. He had a big influence on me. Having now expressed this, check into some of his videos, which he began posting, now, in the age of RU-vid. He doesn't approach the issues in necessarily any more of a diplomatic manner as perhaps he would prefer the church to have treated him. He can get quite sarcastic, condescending, and even irrelevant in his own mild-mannered way. Whether or not the church handled the matters related to him in altogether proper ways is one issue, but there should be no question, Adventism and the teachings of Dr Ford are incompatible to a significant degree.

@@danieloostendorp9286 : please grant me to add what I believe is very important. There is a mystique surrounding Dr Ford that is problematic. There's no question that Dr Ford was uniquely and remarkably knowledgeable, but even by standard metrics, his IQ, he was no genius, but the metrics do indicate that he was just under a genius. This is not to rub any salt in the wound, but it's important that folks separate the mystique from the facts. I wouldn't doubt that he was the most knowledgeable Adventist perhaps in the history of our church, but that matter is negligible, because RU-vid and other social media are demonstrating to us that there are for all practical purposes many Adventist ministers and spokespeople and expositors, like Roy Gane, and Bro Morgan, here, who are for all practical purposes just as knowledgeable and have just as keen a mind. As far as names that few know, I know from knowing him personally that Pastor Mirra has a stupendous biblical mind, including memory retention and analysis and I'm sure there are others like him. Two other names that come to my mind, that some old-timers may know are the late Pastor Richard Marker, especially if you're from California, and a fellow from New York, who may now be in the Andrews University system, Rolin Shoemaker. I know personally that these men had stupendous, stupendous minds. Let's not be so enthusiastic about Dr Ford that we place our own analysis of him somewhere out in the Twilight Zone.

@@danieloostendorp9286 Kevin won the debate easily. Kevin not only refuted the attacks, maintained a Christian character (as opposed to cranky Dr. Daily who relied on opinion and personal attacks and the reading of motives of the heart), and showed more understanding of the subject matter, and at certain points was debating 2 people at once!

Not sure what debate you watched I suggest you watch it again without biase. Dr Daily is spot on. Go and read his book and all his source materials are real taken from proper materials from the white house. He is an exceptional academic and Kevin had a fair chance but now he spread a different story on different channels as if he won the debate. He simply did not.

We didn't take a poll to see who won, but since it wasn't supposed to be a debate, but merely a discussion, the only winner should have been the listener who got a chance to hear Dr. Daily defend statements in his book against the evidence I had presented in my videos and the additional evidence I ptesented in the discussion.

The viewers decide.

@@danieloostendorp9286 yes. And I as one of the viewers decided Daily failed miserably!

Not sure where that came up in the video, but answering anyway... the Bible doesn't say where he was when Eve talked with the serpent. It only says where he was when she gave him some of the fruit to eat. On the other hand, if he was present at the tree, as those who wish to pick faults with Ellen White assume, then why did he say nothing to the serpent and why did he lay the blame on the woman and only she laid blame on the serpent?

@@kevinmorgan_truth the Bible doesn't say where her husband was? Which Bible doesn't say? So eve was wandering alone in the garden, talked to the serpent and came back later with her husband ate the fruit and then gave some to him? Any Bible verses for that? New International Version When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. New Living Translation The woman was convinced. She saw that the tree was beautiful and its fruit looked delicious, and she wanted the wisdom it would give her. So she took some of the fruit and ate it. Then she gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it, too. English Standard Version So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. Berean Standard Bible When the woman saw that the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eyes, and that it was desirable for obtaining wisdom, she took the fruit and ate it. She also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate it. King James Bible And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. New King James Version So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. New American Standard Bible When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took some of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband with her, and he ate. NASB 1995 When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. NASB 1977 When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. Legacy Standard Bible Then the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, so she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. Amplified Bible And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was delightful to look at, and a tree to be desired in order to make one wise and insightful, she took some of its fruit and ate it; and she also gave some to her husband with her, and he ate. Christian Standard Bible The woman saw that the tree was good for food and delightful to look at, and that it was desirable for obtaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate it; she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Holman Christian Standard Bible Then the woman saw that the tree was good for food and delightful to look at, and that it was desirable for obtaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate it; she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. American Standard Version And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat; and she gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat. Aramaic Bible in Plain English And the woman saw that it was a tree good to eat, and was desirable to the eyes, and a tree desirable to gaze at, and she took from its fruit and ate, and she gave also to her husband with her and he ate. Brenton Septuagint Translation And the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes to look upon and beautiful to contemplate, and having taken of its fruit she ate, and she gave to her husband also with her, and they ate. Contemporary English Version The woman stared at the fruit. It looked beautiful and tasty. She wanted the wisdom that it would give her, and she ate some of the fruit. Her husband was there with her, so she gave some to him, and he ate it too. Douay-Rheims Bible And the woman saw that the tree was good to eat, and fair to the eyes, and delightful to behold: and she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave to her husband who did eat. English Revised Version And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat; and she gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat. GOD'S WORD® Translation The woman saw that the tree had fruit that was good to eat, nice to look at, and desirable for making someone wise. So she took some of the fruit and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Good News Translation The woman saw how beautiful the tree was and how good its fruit would be to eat, and she thought how wonderful it would be to become wise. So she took some of the fruit and ate it. Then she gave some to her husband, and he also ate it. International Standard Version When the woman saw that the tree produced good food, was attractive in appearance, and was desirable for making one wise, she took some of its fruit and ate it. Then she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate some, too. JPS Tanakh 1917 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat; and she gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat. Literal Standard Version And the woman sees that the tree [is] good for food, and that it [is] pleasant to the eyes, and the tree is desirable to make [one] wise, and she takes from its fruit and eats, and also gives [some] to her husband with her, and he eats; Majority Standard Bible When the woman saw that the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eyes, and that it was desirable for obtaining wisdom, she took the fruit and ate it. She also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate it. New American Bible The woman saw that the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eyes, and the tree was desirable for gaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate it; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. NET Bible When the woman saw that the tree produced fruit that was good for food, was attractive to the eye, and was desirable for making one wise, she took some of its fruit and ate it. She also gave some of it to her husband who was with her, and he ate it. New Revised Standard Version So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate. New Heart English Bible When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit, and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. Webster's Bible Translation And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise; she took of its fruit, and ate, and gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. World English Bible When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took some of its fruit, and ate. Then she gave some to her husband with her, and he ate it, too. Young's Literal Translation And the woman seeth that the tree is good for food, and that it is pleasant to the eyes, and the tree is desirable to make one wise, and she taketh of its fruit and eateth, and giveth also to her husband with her, and he doth eat;

@@kevinmorgan_truth it didn't come up in the interview but it does go to trusting Ellen's writings and you didn't answer. Answering a different question, asking me questions and deflecting doesn't build up trust in her or defend her unbiblical writings.

@@mikepotter1291 Kevin wasn't deflecting. He was just illustrating by his question that what Ellen White presents isn't contrary to the Scripture since it doesn't present the matter in a way that would specifically contradict Ellen White, similarly to how one Gospel account says Jesus was reviled by those He was crucified with and another account says one of those crucified ended up accepting Him. One Gospel says there was one angel at the tomb, another says two etc.

​@@mikepotter1291With all due respect, I answered directly: the Bible does not say where Adam was when the woman spoke with the serpent. It says where he was when she gave him the fruit. The questions are merely to get people to think about whether it makes sense to ASSUME that he was also "with her" during her conversation with the serpent.

@@danieloostendorp9286 Just like we see repetition of information ("copying") between Matthew, Luke and Mark, Kings and Chronicles. We got into that. Luke 1:1-4 NKJV [1] Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, [2] just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, [3] it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, [4] that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed. -So we see that Luke puts together an orderly account, considering that many have written it, and we see much repeated info between his account and Matthew and Luke and scholars also say there was a Q source used.

What do you mean by "copied"?

Please purchase one of the books that expose her by Walter Ray called The White Lie. Also get Dr Daly book Phucobiography of EG White.

@@danieloostendorp9286 that's like telling me "please purchase a book that teaches the Bible is false." Pastor Kevin already overthrew Steve Daily's arguments as well as those of The White Lie. He won the debate and he further addresses those lies in this video.

@@michaelmirraministry8834 Not sure why you always reply on behalf of Kevin and giving wrong answers

@@danieloostendorp9286 Well the Bible does mention giants. Enoch seen on Mars and Jupiter? Show me the quotes on that. Other inhabitants on unfallen worlds in the heavenly universe? What's so hard about believing that an infinite God created other worlds? This planet is only 6000 years old! But God is the Infinite Creator! This is not a main focus of Ellen White by the way.

Show me today anyone living on Mars and Jupiter. In 1847, James and Ellen White published a tract announcing Ellen had seen a vision of the planets in the solar system: At our conference in Topsham, Maine, last Nov., Ellen had a vision of the handy works of God. She was guided to the planets Jupiter, Saturn, and I think one more. After she came out of vision, she could give a clear description of their Moons, etc. It is well known, that she knew nothing of astronomy, and could not answer one question in relation to the planets, before she had this vision.3  Notice in the above quote that James says Ellen gave a "clear description" of their moons. The description was so clear that it included the exact number of Jupiter's moons. SDA historian J.N. Loughborough apparently interviewed Bates on the subject and here is how he described the vision: One evening, at the conference above mentioned, at the house of Mr. Curtiss and in the presence of Elder Bates, who was yet undecided in regard to these manifestations, Mrs. White, while in vision, began to talk about the stars, giving a glowing description of rosy-tinted belts which she saw across the surface of some planet, and added, 'I see four moons.' 'Oh,' said Elder Bates, 'she is viewing Jupiter!' Then having made motions as though traveling through space, she began giving a description of belts and rings in their ever-varying beauty, and said, 'I see seven moons.'7 Elder Bates exclaimed, 'She is describing Saturn.' Next she said, 'I see six moons,' and at once began a description of the 'opening heavens,' with its glory, calling it an opening into a region more enlightened.4

In 1846 EW was in Maine and was taken into vision and given a view of other planets. When she described what she saw, it was Joseph Bates who stated the names of the planets...not EW. No doubt many accepted Bates identity of these planets and assumed he was correct. We must not "pin" Bates mistaken assumption on Ellen White!!

​@@donnabeavon4485poor excuse .

No excuse...just checking the actual facts​@danieloostendorp9286

go to church

Thanks for your comment. It helps the algorithm to direct more viewers to see the video for themselves.