Evangelical Adventist

[Sophia7]

I guess we have had more vocal folks lately

The last one to be baptized had a great testimony, so hard to pass that up.

Yes, that's true.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

I was thinking about what an evenglical adventist was and this is what I came up with

Think of it this way.

and evanglical adventist is and that hold to the views of william miller but cannot accept that the 2300 day ended with the investigative judgement and they cannot accept egw as a prophet? other then that they are basicly the same.

 

[Sophia7]

I can't be an evangelical Adventist then, I guess. I don't hold many views in common with William Miller.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

what do you do with th 2300 days? i don't agree with the Ij, but i think the day for a year is sound.

 

[Sophia7]

I don't agree with applying the "day-for-a-year principle" to Daniel 8:14 (and you don't even need it to get 490 years out of the 70 weeks in Daniel 9). It doesn't fit the context of Daniel 8 to extend it to 1844 or to apply it to a judgment of God's people. Daniel 8 involves a judgment of the little horn; it has nothing to do with a cleansing of the sins of the people from the heavenly sanctuary.

Besides that, one of the purposes of prophecy is to give people confidence in God when they see what has been predicted come to pass. Other OT prophecies gave His people assurance of His sovereignty when they saw earthly governments rise and fall just as He said. They also give Christians faith in Jesus' claim to be the promised Messiah. However, nothing happened in 1844 that we can point to with any degree of credibility to most Christians. We have taken the word of some guy who had a revelation in a cornfield and have built a whole theology and an identity around it, incorporating Miller's proof-texting methods rather than sound exegesis. Our arguments have become more sophisticated over time in order to answer the objections of the critics, but the fact remains that the foundation of this doctrine is still flimsy.

The Adventist claim about what happened in heaven on October 22, 1844, is unprovable and unsupportable from the Bible alone. It depends on the writings of Ellen White and a string of assumptions and texts taken out of context. I believe that the Adventist view of the antitypical Day of Atonement actually contradicts Levitical typology and the book of Hebrews.

So what purpose would 1844 serve? Some argue that it was not the primary fulfillment of Daniel 8:14 but that it still had some significance in that God used it to raise up the Adventist movement. Certainly, I believe that God has brought about much good in spite of some error. However, if this foundational doctrine is unbiblical, then I don't see how our incorrect interpretation of this prophecy can be any kind of fulfillment of it.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

and evanglical adventist is and that hold to the views of william miller but cannot accept that the 2300 day ended with the investigative judgement and they cannot accept egw as a prophet? other then that they are basicly the same.

I am pretty good at history but if you asked me what Miller believed on a wide range of Christian doctrines I could not tell you. So I don't think the above would be a good illustration to anyone even if it was accurate which I don't think it is. By the way there are progressive Adventists who do accept EGW as a prophet. Though their definition of a prophet may not be the traditional definition. I personally don't like that method as words do have meanings and if people go redefining what they mean by a word it leads to tremendous confusion. I think we could resolve the EGW problem by using her pastorally, which allows her to be wrong.

 

[Sophia7]

I think that I would rather not be put into any category based on my beliefs. I don't really fit very well into any one subdivision of Adventists right now.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

I think that I would rather not be put into any category based on my beliefs. I don't really fit very well into any one subdivision of Adventists right now.

then create a new catagory? you are areent a full sda, but you are enough,

you are a sabbatarian adventist, not a seventh day adventist. that would better describe you?

 

[Adventist Dissident]

I don't agree with applying the "day-for-a-year principle" to Daniel 8:14 (and you don't even need it to get 490 years out of the 70 weeks in Daniel 9). It doesn't fit the context of Daniel 8 to extend it to 1844 or to apply it to a judgment of God's people. Daniel 8 involves a judgment of the little horn; it has nothing to do with a cleansing of the sins of the people from the heavenly sanctuary.

Besides that, one of the purposes of prophecy is to give people confidence in God when they see what has been predicted come to pass. Other OT prophecies gave His people assurance of His sovereignty when they saw earthly governments rise and fall just as He said. They also give Christians faith in Jesus' claim to be the promised Messiah. However, nothing happened in 1844 that we can point to with any degree of credibility to most Christians. We have taken the word of some guy who had a revelation in a cornfield and have built a whole theology and an identity around it, incorporating Miller's proof-texting methods rather than sound exegesis. Our arguments have become more sophisticated over time in order to answer the objections of the critics, but the fact remains that the foundation of this doctrine is still flimsy.

The Adventist claim about what happened in heaven on October 22, 1844, is unprovable and unsupportable from the Bible alone. It depends on the writings of Ellen White and a string of assumptions and texts taken out of context. I believe that the Adventist view of the antitypical Day of Atonement actually contradicts Levitical typology and the book of Hebrews.

So what purpose would 1844 serve? Some argue that it was not the primary fulfillment of Daniel 8:14 but that it still had some significance in that God used it to raise up the Adventist movement. Certainly, I believe that God has brought about much good in spite of some error. However, if this foundational doctrine is unbiblical, then I don't see how our incorrect interpretation of this prophecy can be any kind of fulfillment of it.

sophia we know you have issues with the 2300 days
, but you never said what to do with it. you gave your objections. to it but never stated what should be done. what is your solution? if not day for a year then what? when does it apply, where do you place it? when does it start when does it end.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

I am pretty good at history but if you asked me what Miller believed on a wide range of Christian doctrines I could not tell you. So I don't think the above would be a good illustration to anyone even if it was accurate which I don't think it is. By the way there are progressive Adventists who do accept EGW as a prophet. Though their definition of a prophet may not be the traditional definition. I personally don't like that method as words do have meanings and if people go redefining what they mean by a word it leads to tremendous confusion. I think we could resolve the EGW problem by using her pastorally, which allows her to be wrong.

i was refereing to the Millers basic prophetic theology. not all of his theology. 2300 day, day for a year, just not the I.J. at the end of the 2300 days.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

The Adventist claim about what happened in heaven on October 22, 1844, is unprovable and unsupportable from the Bible alone. I

it depends on the writings of Ellen White and a string of assumptions

i have to disagree with this statment. i dnot think it is dependant on egw i thing EGW is dependant on the assumptions made in the cornfield and croisers study. Dis prove that and you dis prove EGW.
the purpose was to start the Adventist chruch. don't you know that???

i guess the main objections i have with you post is your rip the 2300 days apart,but never do any thing with it your self. come up with somethig better.

 

[Sophia7]

sophia we know you have issues with the 2300 days
, but you never said what to do with it. you gave your objections. to it but never stated what should be done. what is your solution? if not day for a year then what? when does it apply, where do you place it? when does it start when does it end.

I haven't figured that out yet for sure.

 

[Sophia7]

I have to disagree with this statment. i dnot think it is dependant on egw i thing EGW is dependant on the assumptions made in the cornfield and croisers study. Dis prove that and you dis prove EGW.
the purpose was to start the Adventist chruch. don't you know that???

Of course, but the two are really inseparable. And our current understanding of the IJ is firmly rooted in the writings of EGW.

i guess the main objections i have with you post is your rip the 2300 days apart,but never do any thing with it your self. come up with somethig better.

If the Adventist view of Daniel 8:14 is wrong, it's wrong, no matter what you put in its place. The Bible doesn't support it. I'm not completely convinced about any alternative theories, but that doesn't have any bearing on whether the Adventist doctrine is biblical or not.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Of course, but the two are really inseparable. And our current understanding of the IJ is firmly rooted in the writings of EGW.



If the Adventist view of Daniel 8:14 is wrong, it's wrong, no matter what you put in its place. The Bible doesn't support it. I'm not completely convinced about any alternative theories, but that doesn't have any bearing on w


I think you misunderstand what I am saying. you say 2300 day anre nothing. Iam not convinced about that. i do think the IJ is bogus.

 

[Sophia7]

I think you misunderstand what I am saying. you say 2300 day anre nothing. Iam not vinvinced about that. i do think the IJ is bogus.

No, I don't think they are nothing. I just disagree with the Adventist interpretation of them. I think they do have a meaning, but I'm not completely sure what it is yet.

Tell me, though, if you think the IJ is bogus, what do you see as the meaning of 1844 and the event that fulfilled the 2300 days?

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Probably the best explaination of the 2300 evenings and mornings is that they refer to the period of Time that Antiochus Epiphanes descecrated the temple. It is pretty well accepted by most scholars as referring to that time period and is often even used by those who say the book was written at the time of the desecration.

Prophetically speaking since the early church times people looked at Antiochus Epiphanes as a type of the antichrist still to come.
See http://cafesda.blogspot.com/2006/08/dual-application-of-daniel-antiochus.html

The Adventist interpretation of the 2300 days does not even work, not even a little.

I have asked the following on several forums and still never recieved an answer:

Since in both Dan. 2, 7 and 8 Daniel gives wide ranging prophecies which apparently run from the time of Babylon to the time of the Advent of Christ or the second coming of Christ depending on your view. It is hard to say that Daniel 9 is restricted to the 2300 evenings and mornings, that is, that it is an elaboration on the 2300 days. Clearly that was not what Daniel was concerned with at the start of the chapter or with his prayer as he specifically refers to the 70 year prophecy of Jeremiah. If this was written in around the 500's B.C. time period there was no temple.

To assume that the decree to rebuild the temple marks the beginning of the time period where the Temple is desecrated makes no sense at all. Yet this is what our traditional understanding has said. -457 + 2300 = 1843 + the year zero = 1844 So for the 2300 days to stand for the time of the desecration of the temple, the temple has to be desecrated from before it’s construction. If the sanctuary is not the one which Daniel was expecting, i.e. the rebuilt sanctuary of the decree, then the Adventist view has to have the sanctuary in heaven be trampled and desecrated by the little horn from the time of the decree to rebuild the earthly temple. In which case even before Christ came, the heavenly sanctuary would have been desecrated.

So in Adventist terminology from 4 centuries before any knew of the Messiah's work of intercession His work of intercession was being desecrated. During His earthly ministry again his ministry was desecrated and when Christianity spread throughout the world it was all during the time when the sanctuary was being trampled.


As Bill O’Reilly would say, “tell me where I am wrong?”

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Probably the best explaination of the 2300 evenings and mornings is that they refer to the period of Time that Antiochus Epiphanes descecrated the temple. It is pretty well accepted by most scholars as referring to that time period and is often even used by those who say the book was written at the time of the desecration.

Prophetically speaking since the early church times people looked at Antiochus Epiphanes as a type of the antichrist still to come.
See http://cafesda.blogspot.com/2006/08/dual-application-of-daniel-antiochus.html

The Adventist interpretation of the 2300 days does not even work, not even a little.

I have asked the following on several forums and still never recieved an answer:

Since in both Dan. 2, 7 and 8 Daniel gives wide ranging prophecies which apparently run from the time of Babylon to the time of the Advent of Christ or the second coming of Christ depending on your view. It is hard to say that Daniel 9 is restricted to the 2300 evenings and mornings, that is, that it is an elaboration on the 2300 days. Clearly that was not what Daniel was concerned with at the start of the chapter or with his prayer as he specifically refers to the 70 year prophecy of Jeremiah. If this was written in around the 500's B.C. time period there was no temple.

To assume that the decree to rebuild the temple marks the beginning of the time period where the Temple is desecrated makes no sense at all.

why doesn't it make sense ? 457 bc is what you are talking aobut.

 

[Sophia7]

I am leaning toward the view that Daniel 8 and 11 are parallel (with Daniel 11 covering the Greek period in more detail) and that Daniel 8 doesn't extend in time to the end of the world as do Daniel 2 and 7. In other words, Daniel 8 covers only a small portion of time, limited to the Medo-Persian and Greek periods--kind of like a video camera zooming in on that event after showing a broader panoramic view. This would mean that the little-horn power in chapter 7 is different from the little horn in chapter 8. It would also favor the Antiochus Epiphanes interpretation.

However, my main problem with this is that Antiochus' desecration didn't last quite 1150 days (if you halve the 2300 evenings and mornings as is required for this view). If taken as 2300 literal days corresponding to different dates in his campaign against the Jews, it still doesn't quite add up. I've seen some really convoluted answers that tried to explain these discrepancies, but they were not terribly convincing to me. The best answer that people can come up with seems to be that the numbers are not meant to be taken exactly literally (and they make a comparison to the fact that the 70-year captivity of the Jews did not last exactly 70 years either, that the focus was on their theological significance rather than on their precise dating). So I'm not sure what to think about that.

Also, I think that toward the end of Daniel 11, it jumps ahead to the end of time and switches its focus to the last-day antichrist power, which the earlier one prefigured. Scholars who take this view differ on where exactly that point is in the chapter, however.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

why doesn't it make sense ? 457 bc is what you are talking aobut.

What do you mean, why doesn't it make sense the 2300 is a reference to how long the little horn power tramples the sanctuary. it is set right after 2300 evening and mornings. That means that it has to be trampled under until it is set right. So if you start at 457 BC then you have to use that as the beginning point of the 2300 and that must be brought about by the little horn at that time.

The problem is that for so long we have used these numbers that we don't even think about what the numbers meant in the book of Daniel.

Daniel8:9 Out of one of them came another horn, which started small but grew in power to the south and to the east and toward the Beautiful Land. 10 It grew until it reached the host of the heavens, and it threw some of the starry host down to the earth and trampled on them. 11 It set itself up to be as great as the Prince of the host; it took away the daily sacrifice from him, and the place of his sanctuary was brought low. 12 Because of rebellion, the host of the saints [a] and the daily sacrifice were given over to it. It prospered in everything it did, and truth was thrown to the ground. 13 Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to him, "How long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled—the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, the rebellion that causes desolation, and the surrender of the sanctuary and of the host that will be trampled underfoot?"
14 He said to me, "It will take 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary will be reconsecrated."

 

[Sophia7]

What do you mean, why doesn't it make sense the 2300 is a reference to how long the little horn power tramples the sanctuary. it is set right after 2300 evening and mornings. That means that it has to be trampled under until it is set right. So if you start at 457 BC then you have to use that as the beginning point of the 2300 and that must be brought about by the little horn at that time.

The problem is that for so long we have used these numbers that we don't even think about what the numbers meant in the book of Daniel.

Good point.