I have developed a well adjusted precedence of Spiritual Authority in Spiritual Truth from Spiritual Truth sources.From Dr. Raymond Cottrell:
I first encountered problems with the traditional interpretation of Daniel 8:14, professionally, in the spring of 1955 during the process of editing comment on the Book of Daniel for volume 4 of the SDA Bible Commentary. As a work intended to meet the most exacting scholarly standards, we intended our comment to reflect the meaning obviously intended by the Bible writers. As an Adventist commentary it must also reflect, as accurately as possible, what Adventists believe and teach. But in Daniel 8 and 9 we found it hopelessly impossible to comply with both of these requirements.35In 1958 the Review and Herald Publishing Association needed new printing plates for the classic book Bible Readings, and it was decided to revise it where necessary to agree with the Commentary. Coming again to the Book of Daniel I determined to try once more to find a way to be absolutely faithful to both Daniel and the traditional Adventist interpretation of 8:14, but again found it impossible. I then formulated six questions regarding the Hebrew text of the passage and its context, which I submitted to every college teacher versed in Hebrew and every head of the religion department in all of our North American colleges---all personal friends of mine. Without exception they replied that there is no linguistic or contextual basis for the traditional Adventist interpretation of Daniel 8:14.36When the results of this questionnaire were called to the attention of the General Conference president, he and the Officers appointed the super-secret Committee on Problems in the Book of Daniel, of which I was a member. Meeting intermittently for five years (1961-1966), we considered 48 papers relative to Daniel 8 and 9, and in the spring of 1966 adjourned sine die, unable to reach a consensus.
Contained in the Adventist commentary denotes exclusivity to that sect.
Admission that there is no basis for the Adventist interpretation within Scripture from those biased to support it indicates it isn't biblical.
Adjourning sine die shows the conclusion to sweep it under the rug and pretend the problem doesn't exist.
It is pure dishonesty on the part of the SDA church.
EGW, an Adventist verified messenger of GOD, is higher in precedence than Dr. Raymond Cottrell, an Adventist Theologian. So when a conflict of personal conflicting view points becomes apparent, I will side with EGW and their views of the Second Advent("pre-Second Advent Judgment") Investigative Judgment.
You are free to express your own views within CARM discussion rules and GOD's free will choice given to all men.
Scriptures is filled with Judgment Verbiage, I have studied enough to understand that Judgment Verbiage, aligns with the Second Advent("pre-Second Advent Judgment") Investigative Judgment.
In GOD's offer of free will choice to us, comes the opportunity of others to express their own misunderstandings about Judgment Verbiage.
AV Mt 12:36-37 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. 37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
On this day, we all will be accountable for our choice of words, from our free will choice to believe.
Yours in Christ, Michael