Important Doctrines and Inerrancy: An Axiom

[RND]

Therefore the context as well as the original language rules out years as any plausible interpretation.

How so? What proof are you offering?

Anyone wanna debate the original Hebrew of Daniel 8:13-14?

Sure.

 

[OntheDL]

How so? What proof are you offering?

Sure.

Let him play solo since he wants to sing his own tune.

 

[RND]

Let him play solo since he wants to sing his own tune.

I thought I'd indulge him a bit since he likes to bring his own rope!

 

[JohnT]

Why do you deem it funny?

I find it truly sad that not one of the "unique" SDA beliefs such as IJ, Sanctuary and 1844 can not be supported by taking the words from the original languages, in the context of their pericope, and establish a "key principle" such as years=days.

Belief in an inerrant autographa necessitates that all doctrines be subject to a lower critical analysis whereby one takes the words in Scripture as what they actually do mean, and not as we or perhaps EGW says. BTW Lower criticism is also a synonym for linguistic-grammatical analysis of Scripture.

To do otherwise is to severely limit the extent and scope of infallibility of Scripture to "the revelation of God's will" as in FB 1.

Herein lies my concern: It seems as if some higher ups have hoodwinked the laity into believing that those "unique" beliefs are Scripturally sound, when in fact they can only be "proved" by cherry picking out-of-context verses, and ignoring simple linguistic principles.

I have YET (here, or on CARM or elsewhere) to see those "unique" doctrines using a linguistic-grammatical analysis

 

[JohnT]

How so? What proof are you offering? Sure.

עֶרֶב בֹּקֶר

This is, reading right to left, mornings and evenings.

It is referring to the twice daily sacrifices in the Temple.

The word "year" is nowhere said.not implied on this section, nor the entire book.


If this is supposed to be "years" then try inserting "years " into 8:26 to see how that distorts the meaning of Scripture.

 

[JohnT]

Since no one has successfully challenged the Hebrew in Daniel 8:14 since I last posted about a week ago, we must all agree that the words mean what they say and say what they mean.

THE CORRECT TRANSLATION MUST BE MORNINGS EVENINGS.

Now, we must also go consider the context. You know, it is the verses that precede the verse in question. The reason for that is if there is any verse taken out of its context, it is a pretest, and if the first sense of a verse makes sense, seek no other sense, lest you get nonsense.

Daniel 8:11-13
Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down

And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered.
:
Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?.
​

In case you did not get it, Daniel is asking the length of the lack of daily sacrifice. It is mentioned in verse 12, also.

Therefore, the first sense of verse reads that Daniel was asking about the DAILY SACRIFICE in verse 12, and he was asking about the DAILY SACRIFICE in verse 13 as well. That is the plain sense of the two verses, also. Therefore, we need not seek any other sense, lest we get nonsense.

Daniel 8:14
And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days [actually mornings evenings]; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.
​

That is the answer that Daniel wanted! it is given in therms of the daily sacrifice, mentioned in 11, 12, and 13

It is clear that the answer to Daniel's question was given tin the same way that he asked; he referred to the DAILY SACRIFICES (two of them, one every morning, and one every evening), and the angel in the vision told him that the cycle of 2300 DAILY SACRIFICES would be the length of the time that the DAILY SACRIFICE (verse 11) would be taken away from the Sanctuary.

Up until the time that it began, the daily sacrifices were continuous. Now they stop. How long are they going to stop? asks Daniel. the answer is 2300 MORNINGS EVENINGS.

Therefore, it is impossible to get the doctrine of Sanctuary Cleaning or 1844 from those verses. In order to support those doctrines, it is necessary to find other Scriptures that support it, and totally eliminate Daniel 8:11-14 as offering any support. It does not exist there.

I am sorry if that upsets any one, but that is just the way that it is.

Besides, if anyone is going to try to make Scriptures say clearly what it does not support, then you are then going to construct another bible of your own; one that completely distorts the actual meanings and words of Scripture.

When you do that, you go off and destroy the inerrancy of the Bible.it says what it does not mean, and means what it does not say.

That is why it is impossible for the SDA to believe in an inerrant autographa, and still support the unique doctrines that the SDA church believes in, and promotes.

Now you see where I am going in the thread. Now you see where I get my axiom from. If you believe in inerrancy, it is impossible to believe in IJ, and 1844, etc because there is NO direct Scriptural support for those doctrines.

 

[RND]

עֶרֶב בֹּקֶר

This is, reading right to left, mornings and evenings.

It is referring to the twice daily sacrifices in the Temple.

The word "year" is nowhere said.not implied on this section, nor the entire book.


If this is supposed to be "years" then try inserting "years " into 8:26 to see how that distorts the meaning of Scripture.

Oh, my.....

One word? That's all you've got?

 

[RND]

Since no one has successfully challenged the Hebrew in Daniel 8:14 since I last posted about a week ago, we must all agree that the words mean what they say and say what they mean.

THE CORRECT TRANSLATION MUST BE MORNINGS EVENINGS.

The correct translation is indeed mornings and evenings. Of course this is no more a "literal translation" than a horn having eyes is in Daniel 7 or a goat having one horn larger than another in Daniel 8.

Now, we must also go consider the context. You know, it is the verses that precede the verse in question. The reason for that is if there is any verse taken out of its context, it is a pretest, and if the first sense of a verse makes sense, seek no other sense, lest you get nonsense.

Daniel 8:11-13
Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down

And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered.
:
Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?.

Proper context is important.

In case you did not get it, Daniel is asking the length of the lack of daily sacrifice. It is mentioned in verse 12, also.

Then we would need to find out when the daily sacrifice was made useless and rendered unnecessary.

We would also need to determine who the prince was that took away the daily sacrifce.

Therefore, the first sense of verse reads that Daniel was asking about the DAILY SACRIFICE in verse 12, and he was asking about the DAILY SACRIFICE in verse 13 as well. That is the plain sense of the two verses, also. Therefore, we need not seek any other sense, lest we get nonsense.

And Daniel is also asking how long it will be from the time that the daily sacrifice is ended to the time of the transgression of desolation.

You haven't told us when the transgression of desolation is to come about yet.

That is the answer that Daniel wanted! it is given in therms of the daily sacrifice, mentioned in 11, 12, and 13

Except it is from the ending of the daily sacrific to the transgression of desolation. When is this to occur?

It is clear that the answer to Daniel's question was given tin the same way that he asked; he referred to the DAILY SACRIFICES (two of them, one every morning, and one every evening), and the angel in the vision told him that the cycle of 2300 DAILY SACRIFICES would be the length of the time that the DAILY SACRIFICE (verse 11) would be taken away from the Sanctuary.

Up until the time that it began, the daily sacrifices were continuous. Now they stop. How long are they going to stop? asks Daniel. the answer is 2300 MORNINGS EVENINGS.

And they stop until when? The transgression of desolation starts. When is that?

Therefore, it is impossible to get the doctrine of Sanctuary Cleaning or 1844 from those verses. In order to support those doctrines, it is necessary to find other Scriptures that support it, and totally eliminate Daniel 8:11-14 as offering any support. It does not exist there.

I am sorry if that upsets any one, but that is just the way that it is.

Besides, if anyone is going to try to make Scriptures say clearly what it does not support, then you are then going to construct another bible of your own; one that completely distorts the actual meanings and words of Scripture.

I agree. Could you enlighten us as to when the transgression of desolation is?

When you do that, you go off and destroy the inerrancy of the Bible.it says what it does not mean, and means what it does not say.

I agree. Could you enlighten us as to when the transgression of desolation is?

That is why it is impossible for the SDA to believe in an inerrant autographa, and still support the unique doctrines that the SDA church believes in, and promotes.

I agree. Could you enlighten us as to when the transgression of desolation is?

Now you see where I am going in the thread. Now you see where I get my axiom from. If you believe in inerrancy, it is impossible to believe in IJ, and 1844, etc because there is NO direct Scriptural support for those doctrines.

I agree only as long as you can accurately and possitively show when and where the transgression of desolation begins and ends.

Could you enlighten us as to when the transgression of desolation is?

 

[JohnT]

One word? That's all you've got?

It is not what I got that matters, it is what is in the original text that matters.

It is two words there. Hebrew does not format well here, so the two words may look like one word when it is posted.

It is not the number of words, either. It s the MEANING that counts: mornings and evenings.

The correct translation is indeed mornings and evenings. Of course this is no more a "literal translation" than a horn having eyes is in Daniel 7 or a goat having one horn larger than another in Daniel 8.

And your point here is what?

Proper context is important.

Agreed

Then we would need to find out when the daily sacrifice was made useless and rendered unnecessary.

Why do you ADD the words "useless and unnecessary"? Daniel asks how long the lack of sacrifices in the Temple would last

Look at the text:

8:11 Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.
​

The answer is in the term of "evenings and mornings" or for short "days"

We would also need to determine who the prince was that took away the daily sacrifce.

No, you would not need to do that to understand the context of the passage. It is abundantly clear that SOMEONE would take away the two daily sacrifices, and that the length of the taking away is 2300 days.

And Daniel is also asking how long it will be from the time that the daily sacrifice is ended to the time of the transgression of desolation.

You haven't told us when the transgression of desolation is to come about yet

Except it is from the ending of the daily sacrific to the transgression of desolation. When is this to occur?

You make two distinct events from one cause and consequence, and make the cause into a future event. The cause is a HISTORICAL event= the transgression of desolation.(8:12) the consequence is to be limited in the future, the abolishing of the daily sacrifices for 2300 days (8:14)

8:12 And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered.
​

The lack of daily sacrifice is caused by the transgression of the people of Israel.

And they stop until when? The transgression of desolation starts. When is that?

This is not a future event, but a CONTEXTUALLY HISTORICAL event Please re read 8:12 again.

I agree. Could you enlighten us as to when the transgression of desolation is?

Please re read 8:12 again. it is a CONTEXTUALLY HISTORICALl event

I agree. Could you enlighten us as to when the transgression of desolation is?

Please re read 8:12 again. it is a CONTEXTUALLY HISTORICAL event

I agree. Could you enlighten us as to when the transgression of desolation is?

Please re read 8:12 again. it is a CONTEXTUALLY HISTORICAL event

I agree only as long as you can accurately and possitively show when and where the transgression of desolation begins and ends.

Please re read 8:12 again. it is a CONTEXTUALLY HISTORICAL event

Could you enlighten us as to when the transgression of desolation is?

Please re read 8:12 again. it is a CONTEXTUALLY HISTORICAL event

 

[JohnT]

abomination that makes desolate, the, an act desecrating the Jerusalem Temple. While attempting to ban Jewish religious practices, Syrian authorities under Antiochus IV erected an altar to Zeus in the Temple (ca. 167 b.c.). 1 Macc. 1:54 characterizes this as ‘a desolating sacrilege’ (cf. 2 Macc. 6:1-5). The book of Daniel, probably written to encourage hope among Jews persecuted by these authorities for keeping the traditions, twice mentions ‘the abomination that makes desolate’ (11:31; 12:11; cf. 9:27), probably meaning this altar to Zeus.

The author of Daniel assured his contemporaries that supernatural deliverance would occur within a relatively short time (Dan. 12:7: ‘a time, two times, and half a time,’ probably meaning three and one-half years; cf. vv. 11-12) from the time the altar was erected. Later, Daniel was read as a book of prophecy, and the abomination that makes desolate was viewed as one of the final signs that must take place before the end (Matt. 24:15; Mark 13:14: ‘the desolating sacrilege,’ kjv: ‘abomination of desolation’; cf. also 2 Thess. 2:3-4).

The emperor Caligula’s plan to erect a statue of himself in the Temple (ca. a.d. 40) may have been seen by some as at least a partial fulfillment of this ‘prophecy,’ but the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, both written more than twenty years later, associate the abomination with the events to precede the expected return of Jesus as ‘Son of man’ and evidently regard it as yet to be fulfilled (Matt. 24:15-21; Mark 13:14-19). Some may have seen its fulfillment in the destruction of the Temple by the Romans in a.d. 70.
See also Abomination; Antiochus; Apocalyptic Literature; Daniel, The Book of; Eschatology; Maccabees; Parousia; Temple, The. R.H.H.​

vv. verses

kjv King James Version

R.H.H. Richard H. Hiers, Ph.D.; Professor, Department of Religion; University of Florida; Gainesville, Florida

Achtemeier, P. J., Harper & Row, P., & Society of Biblical Literature. (1985). Harper's Bible dictionary. Includes index. (1st ed.) (6). San Francisco: Harper & Row.

 

[RND]

It is not what I got that matters, it is what is in the original text that matters.

It is two words there. Hebrew does not format well here, so the two words may look like one word when it is posted.

It is not the number of words, either. It s the MEANING that counts: mornings and evenings.

You're attempting to build a theological argument on one word. That seems rather questionable to me.

And your point here is what?

Just exactly what I stated, to wit: Your suggestion of days and mornings meaning a "literal" day is no more a "literal translation" than a horn having eyes is in Daniel 7 or a goat having one horn larger than another in Daniel 8.

In other words, it is all figuretive and symbolic language, not literal. In order to be literal you'll have to provide some corresponding historical data that is accurate and timely as related to the events in question.

Why do you ADD the words "useless and unnecessary"? Daniel asks how long the lack of sacrifices in the Temple would last

Because Daniel 9 states clearly that eventually the sacrifice and oblation would cease to exist, thus theose things would become useless and unnecessary.

Below, since you are bolding the words, "the daily sacrifice was taken away" it would be handy, in your argument to explain when you think this happened.

When did, or was, the daily sacrifice taken away?

Look at the text:

8:11 Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.
​

The answer is in the term of "evenings and mornings" or for short "days"

When did the sacrifice in the Temple become "obsolete?"

No, you would not need to do that to understand the context of the passage. It is abundantly clear that SOMEONE would take away the two daily sacrifices, and that the length of the taking away is 2300 days.

Does that supposition equate with the actual time frame as to when the daily sacrifice was removed from the temple?

2300 days divided by 360 days in a prophetic year would equate to only 6.38 literal years. In your time frame of 6.38 years what happened?

You make two distinct events from one cause and consequence, and make the cause into a future event. The cause is a HISTORICAL event= the transgression of desolation.(8:12) the consequence is to be limited in the future, the abolishing of the daily sacrifices for 2300 days (8:14)

8:12 And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered.
​

The lack of daily sacrifice is caused by the transgression of the people of Israel.

OK, that's fine. So when did the removal of the daily sacrifce occur and can you show where it was for a reletively short 6.38 year period?

Hint: I think using scripture would be helpful.

This is not a future event, but a CONTEXTUALLY HISTORICAL event Please re read 8:12 again.

That's fine. Would you mind sharing what happened and when and to whom?

Please re read 8:12 again. it is a CONTEXTUALLY HISTORICALl event

That's fine. Would you mind sharing what happened and when and to whom?

Please re read 8:12 again. it is a CONTEXTUALLY HISTORICAL event

That's fine. Would you mind sharing what happened and when and to whom?

Please re read 8:12 again. it is a CONTEXTUALLY HISTORICAL event

That's fine. Would you mind sharing what happened and when and to whom?

Please re read 8:12 again. it is a CONTEXTUALLY HISTORICAL event

That's fine. Would you mind sharing what happened and when and to whom?

Please re read 8:12 again. it is a CONTEXTUALLY HISTORICAL event

That's fine. Would you mind sharing what happened and when and to whom?

 

[RND]

abomination that makes desolate, the, an act desecrating the Jerusalem Temple. While attempting to ban Jewish religious practices, Syrian authorities under Antiochus IV erected an altar to Zeus in the Temple (ca. 167 b.c.). 1 Macc. 1:54 characterizes this as ‘a desolating sacrilege’ (cf. 2 Macc. 6:1-5). The book of Daniel, probably written to encourage hope among Jews persecuted by these authorities for keeping the traditions, twice mentions ‘the abomination that makes desolate’ (11:31; 12:11; cf. 9:27), probably meaning this altar to Zeus.

The author of Daniel assured his contemporaries that supernatural deliverance would occur within a relatively short time (Dan. 12:7: ‘a time, two times, and half a time,’ probably meaning three and one-half years; cf. vv. 11-12) from the time the altar was erected. Later, Daniel was read as a book of prophecy, and the abomination that makes desolate was viewed as one of the final signs that must take place before the end (Matt. 24:15; Mark 13:14: ‘the desolating sacrilege,’ kjv: ‘abomination of desolation’; cf. also 2 Thess. 2:3-4).

The emperor Caligula’s plan to erect a statue of himself in the Temple (ca. a.d. 40) may have been seen by some as at least a partial fulfillment of this ‘prophecy,’ but the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, both written more than twenty years later, associate the abomination with the events to precede the expected return of Jesus as ‘Son of man’ and evidently regard it as yet to be fulfilled (Matt. 24:15-21; Mark 13:14-19). Some may have seen its fulfillment in the destruction of the Temple by the Romans in a.d. 70.
See also Abomination; Antiochus; Apocalyptic Literature; Daniel, The Book of; Eschatology; Maccabees; Parousia; Temple, The. R.H.H.​

vv. verses

kjv King James Version

R.H.H. Richard H. Hiers, Ph.D.; Professor, Department of Religion; University of Florida; Gainesville, Florida

Achtemeier, P. J., Harper & Row, P., & Society of Biblical Literature. (1985). Harper's Bible dictionary. Includes index. (1st ed.) (6). San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Feeble RCC attempt to point the finger at something other than the popery. The dates, according to Daniel' prophecy, are completely incorrect.

 

[JohnT]

Feeble RCC attempt to point the finger at something other than the popery. The dates, according to Daniel' prophecy, are completely incorrect.

What is feeble is YOUR attempt to dismiss something by pathetic name calling, instead of dealing with the issue.

What is feeble is YOUR calling a source as RCC because you disagree with the issue.

What is feeble is that YOU do NOT know the author's credentials, nor the alleged theological bent of the publisher. Instead of research, childish name calling suffices for intelligent, rational discussion,

 

[sentipente]

Feeble RCC attempt to point the finger at something other than the popery. The dates, according to Daniel' prophecy, are completely incorrect.

Now, please demonstrate the scholarly evidence as to why this is a weak attempt.

 

[JohnT]

RND wrote:

It is not the number of words, either. It s the MEANING that counts: mornings and evenings.
You're attempting to build a theological argument on one word. That seems rather questionable to me.

Wait a minute. It is YOU who first wrote “One word? That's all you've got?” then you have the audacity to say that the number of words does NOT matter? Does not compute.

Then you make two incompatible statements:
First you agree that the words are indeed mornings and evenings, which is true
Second, you say that the two words are one word, which is not true.

What then is “questionable” about insisting that mornings and evenings means exactly that? Does not compute.

Your suggestion of days and mornings meaning a "literal" day is no more a "literal translation" than a horn having eyes is in Daniel 7 or a goat having one horn larger than another in Daniel 8.

I fail to see the connection here between Daniel 7, the horn, and the actual words of an angel ( verse 13 reads ”Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake“ in verse 14, as to the actual length of the absence of the daily sacrifice.

In the former, Daniel reports what he saw, and I will grant you that it is highly symbolic, but the actual words of explanation come from an angel, who do not lie; therefore the length of the absence of the daily sacrifice HAS TO BE 2300 mornings and evenings.

Because Daniel 9 states clearly that eventually the sacrifice and oblation would cease to exist, thus these things would become useless and unnecessary.

Below, since you are bolding the words, "the daily sacrifice was taken away" it would be handy, in your argument to explain when you think this happened.

When did, or was, the daily sacrifice taken away?

Daniel 7 begins “In the first year of Belshazzar...”
Daniel 8 begins “in the THIRD year of Belshazzar
Daniel 9 begins, “In the FIRST year of King Darius...”

These are three discrete events, several years apart. How can you make them as one? The CONTEXT rules that out.

Also the CONTEXT answers your question as to the time that it was taken away. The antecedent of the pronoun, he is in verse 9, continues in verses 10 & 11. It is the horn of the goat in verse 8. Now since goats and rams never did actually rule, that is figurative. But Daniel did not ask who it was that is to be the goat’s horn, the name was not given. Instead, he asked for the duration of the absence of daily sacrifice:2300 mornings and evenings.

In the next post, I referred to an authority to bolster my argument. If you doubt that, then you need to find a different authority, and using the same criteria come to a different conclusion. Or barring that, you need to cite reasons why the grammatical-linguistic analysis is deficient. Neither of those arguments have come from you, or any other SDA so far.

When did the sacrifice in the Temple become "obsolete?"

My goodness! You are adept at word twisting! This is the second time you have done that here. (I did not directly call you on the phrase “useless and unnecessary” but now I do. Please refrain in the future; it does not add credibility from your argument. Rather, it detracts from it. The daily sacrifices were TAKEN AWAY by the one in vss. 8, 9, 10, & 11.

Does that supposition equate with the actual time frame as to when the daily sacrifice was removed from the temple?

Your question assumes the impossible: fixing the exact date when Antiochus (or anyone else) actually did that. We can’t cite the exact day of the birth, crucifixion or resurrection of Jesus Christ. Why should we try to be exact on that, of lesser importance?

The lack of daily sacrifice is caused by the transgression of the people of Israel.
OK, that's fine. So when did the removal of the daily sacrifce (sic) occur and can you show where it was for a reletively (sic) short 6.38 year period?


That's fine. Would you mind sharing what happened and when and to whom?

You are asking me to fix dates, and the Bible is silent on that. It is impossible to state a positive, or a negative based on nothingness. Where the Scripture is silent, we should be doing likewise.

BOTTOM LINE:
You have not provided any adequate explanation other than your saying so why the 2300 years should be interpreted in any other way than their first, common sense meaning states. The only “authority” you cite is yourself, and that is inadequate, for it fails to address the contextual and grammatical-linguistic meaning of the words in Daniel 8:14

 

[RND]

RND wrote:
Wait a minute. It is YOU who first wrote “One word? That's all you've got?” then you have the audacity to say that the number of words does NOT matter? Does not compute.

You are attempting to build a complete theological argument on one word, not a series of verses spread over several books of the Bible that tie into what you are attempting to prove.

For example John, do you have other verses that show that "mornings and evenings" CAN NOT be used in ways that deal in symbolic meaning as opposed to literal?

Then you make two incompatible statements:
First you agree that the words are indeed mornings and evenings, which is true
Second, you say that the two words are one word, which is not true.

What then is “questionable” about insisting that mornings and evenings means exactly that? Does not compute.

John, if I'm not mistaken it was you that are using one word to point out "mornings and evenings" or two words. I believe I'm in agreement with you on this point.

`ereb - from '`arab' (6150); dusk:--+ day, even(-ing, tide), night.

I fail to see the connection here between Daniel 7, the horn, and the actual words of an angel ( verse 13 reads ”Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake“ in verse 14, as to the actual length of the absence of the daily sacrifice.

John, I wasn't trying to make any connection. I was merely trying to point out the the language in Daniel 8 is just as symbolic as in Daniel 7.

That's all.

In the former, Daniel reports what he saw, and I will grant you that it is highly symbolic, but the actual words of explanation come from an angel, who do not lie; therefore the length of the absence of the daily sacrifice HAS TO BE 2300 mornings and evenings.

Daniel 7 begins “In the first year of Belshazzar...”
Daniel 8 begins “in the THIRD year of Belshazzar
Daniel 9 begins, “In the FIRST year of King Darius...”

These are three discrete events, several years apart. How can you make them as one? The CONTEXT rules that out.

Also the CONTEXT answers your question as to the time that it was taken away. The antecedent of the pronoun, he is in verse 9, continues in verses 10 & 11. It is the horn of the goat in verse 8. Now since goats and rams never did actually rule, that is figurative. But Daniel did not ask who it was that is to be the goat’s horn, the name was not given. Instead, he asked for the duration of the absence of daily sacrifice:2300 mornings and evenings.

In the next post, I referred to an authority to bolster my argument. If you doubt that, then you need to find a different authority, and using the same criteria come to a different conclusion. Or barring that, you need to cite reasons why the grammatical-linguistic analysis is deficient. Neither of those arguments have come from you, or any other SDA so far.

John, I wasn't trying to make any connection. I was merely trying to point out the the language in Daniel 8 is just as symbolic as in Daniel 7.

That's all.

My goodness! You are adept at word twisting! This is the second time you have done that here. (I did not directly call you on the phrase “useless and unnecessary” but now I do. Please refrain in the future; it does not add credibility from your argument. Rather, it detracts from it. The daily sacrifices were TAKEN AWAY by the one in vss. 8, 9, 10, & 11.

John, the question was "when" not "by whom."

I'll take it from this answer you don't know when these sacrifices were "taken away."

John, try to follow along a little better. It's hard to discuss a topic when someone isn't following along.

Your question assumes the impossible: fixing the exact date when Antiochus (or anyone else) actually did that. We can’t cite the exact day of the birth, crucifixion or resurrection of Jesus Christ. Why should we try to be exact on that, of lesser importance?

Have you read you Bible recently? What were they doing in the Temple in Jesus' day when He overturned the money changers tables?

John 2:14
And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:

They were still selling animals for sacrifice in Jesus' day. Unfortunately they were selling them in the Temple and for all the wrong reasons.

So you can see clearly now, from scripture, that Antiochus could have had nothing to do with the ending of the oblation and daily sacrifice in the Temple. It was still going on in Jesus' day long after Antiochus was dead.

You are asking me to fix dates, and the Bible is silent on that. It is impossible to state a positive, or a negative based on nothingness. Where the Scripture is silent, we should be doing likewise.

No it's not. The Bible is extremely clear when the sacrifice and oblation would cease.

Dan 9:27
And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make [it] desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

BOTTOM LINE:
You have not provided any adequate explanation other than your saying so why the 2300 years should be interpreted in any other way than their first, common sense meaning states. The only “authority” you cite is yourself, and that is inadequate, for it fails to address the contextual and grammatical-linguistic meaning of the words in Daniel 8:14

Look, John, I'm know you are doing all you can to shoot down the 2300 days and you've done absolutely nothing to answer the legitimate questions I asked in response to your assertions.

You claim that the 2300 days are not years as derived from the day/year principal from Numbers and Ezekiel. That's fine. I have no problem with what you may be claiming.

My questions are then in relation to these days, in that they equal a scant 6.38 years. We know from history (both secular and Biblical) that these days could not have occured in Antiochus days because he lived well after the events prophesied in Daniel.

So again I ask you, please tell us what happened and when in happened regarding these 2300 days (6.38 years) and when the sanctuary was cleansed. If you're going to shoot down the 2300 days/year principal then as least thrall us with your historical acumen. Thanks.

I'll be waiting for you answer.

 

[RND]

What is feeble is YOUR attempt to dismiss something by pathetic name calling, instead of dealing with the issue.

Um, I don't think I called you any names. I said your argument was weak. Is that akin to name calling these days?

What is feeble is YOUR calling a source as RCC because you disagree with the issue.

I don't think I called the RCC any names John. I think you are being overly sensitive.

What is feeble is that YOU do NOT know the author's credentials,

This is true.

Are either Richard H. Hiers, Ph.D or P.J. Achtemeier Roman Catholics?

nor the alleged theological bent of the publisher.

Or the authors for that matter.

Instead of research, childish name calling suffices for intelligent, rational discussion,

Again, John what names did I call you or anyone? I think you've seen the tragic consequences of your theologically weak and incomplete argument and you've come to the rather sad realization that another trip to the old drawing board is in order.

My bad for pointing out that your cheese is full of holes.

 

[JohnT]

Um, I don't think I called you any names. I said your argument was weak. Is that akin to name calling these days?

I don't think I called the RCC any names John. I think you are being overly sensitive.That is insipid! Deal with the words you wrote. It is NOT personal. It is your outright rejection of a major source that is so irksome..

This is true.

Are either Richard H. Hiers, Ph.D or P.J. Achtemeier Roman Catholics? Google them to find out

Or the authors for that matter.

Again, John what names did I call you or anyone? I think you've seen the tragic consequences of your theologically weak and incomplete argument and you've come to the rather sad realization that another trip to the old drawing board is in order.

My bad for pointing out that your cheese is full of holes.

RND:

Feeble RCC attempt to point the finger at something other than the popery.

Those are YOUR words, not mine.

It is YOU , not me who tries to dismiss something by falsely calling something Catholic

It is YOU, not me who does not know the theological bent of the author, but you summarily dismiss him via those three hated letters: RCC

Then YOU have the gall to post this nonsense:

My bad for pointing out that your cheese is full of holes.

I beg your pardon, but you have offered nothing other than your mere, unwarranted opinion of Harper's Bible Dictionary a major theological work.

Have you anything better to offer? Doubt it.

 

[RND]

Those are YOUR words, not mine.

Indeed they are and in none of them did I "call anyone any names."

It is YOU , not me who tries to dismiss something by falsely calling something Catholic

The position you posted is classic Catholic doctrine.

It is YOU, not me who does not know the theological bent of the author, but you summarily dismiss him via those three hated letters: RCC

John, I asked you if you knew the theological bent of the authors you quoted. Do you have anything to offer regsrding this querry?

Just so you are aware Paul J. Achtemeier is the past president of The Catholic Biblical Quarterly.

Then YOU have the gall to post this nonsense:I beg your pardon, but you have offered nothing other than your mere, unwarranted opinion of Harper's Bible Dictionary a major theological work.

It's not THAT major of a theological work.

Have you anything better to offer? Doubt it.

John, until you can offer something of substance that is contrary to the claims I made they will remain un-refuted. Sorry.

 

[JohnT]

Indeed they are and in none of them did I "call anyone any names."
You dismiss them as Catholic--acting as if it is the religious equal to the N-word

The position you posted is classic Catholic doctrine.
What EXACTLY makes it Catholic?

John, I asked you if you knew the theological bent of the authors you quoted. Do you have anything to offer regsrding this querry?

Just so you are aware Paul J. Achtemeier is the past president of The Catholic Biblical Quarterly.

And your point is???
Are you saying that Catholics can not tell the truth?
Do all Catholics lie?
Are the scholarly works of Catholics to be discounted merely because they are Catholics?

(((shaking my head)))

It's not THAT major of a theological work.
It is a Bible dictionary
And you have NOT offered ANY OTHER source of academic importance.
And it is more accurate than DoA because nothing there is plagiarized and all the sources are cited, unlike ANY of the works of Ellen.

John, until you can offer something of substance that is contrary to the claims I made they will remain un-refuted. Sorry.

MORE SUBSTANCE??

Paul J. Achtemeier is Professor of Biblical Interpretation at Union Theological Seminary in Richmond, Virginia. A widely respected authority on the Bible, he is the author or co-author of 14 books, former editor of the quarterly Interpretation, and New Testament editor of the Interpretation Biblical Commentary Series. Professor Achtemeier has also been chief executive officer and president of the Society of Biblical Literature, and president of the Catholic Biblical Association.


Richard H. Hiers was born in Pennsylvania in 1932. He earned a Ph.D. in religious studies and ethics from Yale University in 1961 and a J.D. from the University of Florida in 1983. He was employed at the University of Florida for a span of forty-two years beginning in 1961 and ending in 2003 at the time of his retirement. He is the author of several publications in the field of Biblical studies, particularly related to the "historical Jesus," Biblical ethics, and religion and law. In addition, he has authored several works on legal issues such as free speech, discrimination in employment, and academic freedom. Throughout his career, he served as a local and regional officer in several organizations and honor societies including the American Academy of Religion, the Society of Biblical Literature, Phi Kappa Phi, and the American Association of University Professors (AAUP). In his capacity as a member of the University of Florida Chapter of the AAUP he worked towards university collegial governance and improved relations in academic institutions.

Have you more to offer than these men? Where are YOUR academic qualifications?

Would you also summarily dismiss them if these were afro Americans?

Your position is nothing more than anti Catholic prejudice.

Provide the meat, or else you demonstrate the vacuity of your anti-Catholic bigotry

BTW you have STILL not addressed the OP in that the SDA requires an errant autographa in order to state that 1844, etc. is supported by Daniel 8