Adventists affirm Mark 1:15 regarding Dan 9 and the 70 weeks prophecy and pre-advent Investigative Judgment of Dan 7

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:
This is what I meant when I responded "see what happens when I start a sola scriptura thread on Mark 1:15...

It did not take long.

I addressed it from Scripture. And even that was to correct the Ellen White claim about other churches interpretation of Scripture.

Your post on Mark 1:15, and Dan 9:24-26 is pretty hard to find -- or did you mean to refer to your statement that you agree with the SDA view of the 70 weeks (Which is somewhat surprising) -- but does this mean you want to talk about something "else" instead?

 

[The Liturgist]

Then why not start with the actuall details of Dan 7?? I notice that you reference not one of them in your post.

Because I fear to do so would be to take the Lord’s name in vain. At most, I am comfortable only discussing the details of the verses, but I refuse to actually quote them in the context of this conversation. For reasons of my faith, because I believe these texts should be quoted only in the Divine Liturgy, I am willing to quote the Scripture only for the benefit of those who do not know what it says. In this case you evidently know what the text says but are interpreting it in a manner that is incompatible with the theology of the traditional Protestants, the Catholics and the Orthodox and also the early church according to all surviving Patristic documentation that I am aware of, so rather than discussing the text I am discussing your interpretation of it. More on this is presented below.

There is nothing in Dan 7 about the Eschaton or last trumpet. Try and actual quote of Dan 7.

Most of Daniel 7, possible all, is about the Eschaton, although many consider part of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream to be a prophecy of the ancient empires starting with his, and then the Persians which would defeat him, followed by the Greeks under Alexander, followed by the Romans, although the one problem with that interpretation is that Rome never conquered the city of Babylon or its successor Seleucia-Cstesiphon, as these always fell under the control of the Achaemenids and later the Sassanian Persian Empire, which Ancient Rome was in something of a Cold War with.

Where we find the court room in heaven vs 9-11, judgement vs 22, the court sits and the books are opened vs 9-10 and judgment is eventually passed "in favor of the saints" vs 22...

No, you have it wrong. You are interpreting literally not only those verses of prophecy meant to be interpreted as typological prophecy of the eschaton, which are in the interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, but also Nebuchadenzzar’s dream itself, which makes no sense in the context of the text, because even if we were to accept that the interpretation of the dream by the Holy Prophet Daniel was to be taken in a literal rather than symbolic context, which by the way would render most of the Christological prophecy in the Old Testament effectively meaningless, even with that hermeneutic error, people who make that error of hyper-Alexandrian exegesis still recognize that the dream itself of Nebuchadnezzar cannot be interpreted literally, because the Holy Prophet Daniel provides an interpretation of it which proves that it is symbolic.

So if the basis for the doctrine of the Investigative Judgement is an admixture of verses from within the interpreted dream and verses from its interpretation, all taken literally, such an interpretation directly contradicts the text itself by virtue of being out of context.

In other words - "the text" not simply

Rev 20 is the only chapter that gets close - and that is not the Dan 7 topic at all.

If you are doing to make a statement about Dan 7 - then use the words of the actual chapter... pick a verse in it.

No matter who else thinks what - the chapter cannot be understood by carefully avoiding it.


Looking carefully at the OP - we find that the verses matter and that your "as presented by Ellen White" is not even remotely in the topic.
There are "others" who are trying to start some all-ellen-white-all-the-time threads but this is not one of them.



The Dan 7 chapter that you are ignoring is the one with those texts..

I do not ignore it - I accept it as important prophecy, but I reject outright your interpretation of it because you conflate the contents of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream with St. Daniel’s interpretation of it.

Why not address your comments to the actual verses in the chapter

Because it was not necessary to do so, and I am tired of profaning scriptural texts by quoting them outside of the Divine Liturgy. It is a matter of personal conviction. At most, I am willing to describe, paraphrase, or refer by verse number, except in limited instances where someone appears unaware of a particular passage, for example, if I felt a need in discussions with you to quote one of the many very important books which you do not accept as canonical, because, correct me if I’m wrong, you know the contents of the 66 books accepted by your church as canonical.

or is it your clam that Dan 7 does not exist so therefore there is no pre-advent Dan 7 judgment where the court sits and the books are opened and judgment is eventually passed "in favor of the saint" thus bringing in the age of Christ's rule - just as the chapter states????

Because I disagree with your interpretation of Daniel 7 you dare to suggest that I deny that it exists? Seriously?

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:

Then why not start with the actuall details of Dan 7?? I notice that you reference not one of them in your post.

Because I fear to do so would be to take the Lord’s name in vain.

I think it is "instructive" that you are so quick to make claims about what Dan 7 is or is not about - yet fear to actually quote the Word of God - Dan 7 to make your case for or against something.

At most, I am comfortable only discussing the details of the verses, but I refuse to actually quote them in the context of this conversation.

It is very noticeable that you often refuse to quote the text you are making your assertions about.

Is it possible that your comments would not benefit from the quote of the text ?

I have been uncomfortable quoting verses of scripture in polemics on CF.com for some time

I would agree - you have been very reluctant to do that.

, and I am now convicted of the fact that to do so would constitute a profanation of the text

If the text has any value at all - it has value in understanding what it is saying. Refusing to quote the text while making sweeping claims about what it says - is a great to create 'distance from the text' and in that distance to include some logical error.

I trust the text itself.

In this case you evidently know what the text says

Which is why I am so adamant about affirming it and quoting it.

 

[tall73]

ok I did not see that coming.

Apparently not, and your assumption appears to have caused you to miss a few things.

From my first post I posted an Adventist source that elaborates on it, and gave additional scriptures which clarify it.

And I noted the parallel passage regarding the year of the Lord's favor.

I also posted an actual example of those who received that prophecy, and prior to Jesus' coming were in fact anticipating the fulfillment, while again quoting an Adventist source.

And if you will put aside your assumptions for a moment we can further discuss some points that the articles I posted touched on.

I don't reject something because Adventists accept it.

not according to the actual text of Dan 9.

24 “Seventy weeks

As the title of the first article alluded to, that is the simplistic version based on your English translation. The term does not always mean weeks. It is the word for seven, and it can contextually mean weeks, but it can also have other meanings, depending on what the passage says.

does not change Dan 9.

is his mission at the 483 year point. But does not get us to "sabbatical years"

The Essenes thought it did. The two Adventist scholars I quoted thought it did, as have a number of others. Because we are already at sabbatical years with the reference to Jeremiah's prophecy.

The reason for the length of the captivity was the sabbatical years, as promised in the covenant curses and blessings:

Leviticus 26:
33 I will scatter you among the nations and draw out a sword after you;
your land shall be desolate and your cities waste.
34 Then the land shall enjoy its sabbaths as long as it lies desolate and you are in your enemies’ land; then the land shall rest and enjoy its sabbaths.
35 As long as it lies desolate it shall rest—for the time it did not rest on your sabbaths when you dwelt in it.

That this is the reason for the time period is confirmed in 2 Chronicles:

2 Chronicles 36:20 And those who escaped from the sword he carried away to Babylon, where they became servants to him and his sons until the rule of the kingdom of Persia, 21 to fulfill the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed her Sabbaths. As long as she lay desolate she kept Sabbath, to fulfill seventy years.

And now in that context a new period is introduced of 70 sevens of years.

Is not a reference to Jubilee years either since liberty in this context is not at all in the context of property or condoned servitude having a break

The gospel of Christ had many far-reaching consequences, not just spiritual, though certainly those.

The gospel did not only give spiritual freedom, specifically mentioned regarding slaves in the below passage, but did indeed lay the ground work for not being slaves of men:

I Corinthians 7:21 Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned about it; but if you can be made free, rather use it. 22 For he who is called in the Lord while a slave is the Lord’s freedman. Likewise he who is called while free is Christ’s slave. 23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. 24 Brethren, let each one remain with God in that state in which he was called.

And while Paul does give guidelines for slaves and masters so as to not bring reproach on the gospel, he does begin to apply the above in the case of Onesimus. He says he himself will repay whatever debt that Onesimus has, but he wants Philemon to grant that he would no longer be a slave, and instead a brother.

Moreover, the church's practice of no one claiming that their goods were their own, but helping with needs also had very practical applications.

So while I agree the release of captives has primary application to release from slavery to sin and bondage to impurity and uncleanness, etc. it is not just that. And he does use language that the Essenes recognize as Jubilee language.

If you wish to have your own odd angle about Jubilee added to these obvious statements where 490 days is - day-for-year, you have free will to do so -- I am not really complaining -- I just don't find it to be very direct, obvious or necessary given the fact that Dan 9 is much more direct than that.

Well Bob since you want this to be a Scripture only thread but just started out giving your "rules", which included the year-day, but didn't explain why, you have only been "obvious" by omitting any details from Scripture to start with.

I don't even disagree with a year day principle, and would note that Shea's treatment of it in Selected studies on Prophetic Interpretation gives a fair amount of evidence on the topic. I think they may even have a free copy in pdf online now that it is out of print.

But it is not my idea that these are sabbatical years, but are recognized by people because of the sabbatical years context, the use of the term 7's (because sabbatical years recurred in patterns of 7), etc.

I think the language used in Dan 9 is much more direct and a number of both SDA and non-SDA commentaries agree.

Except you are not reading the language in Daniel 9. You are reading the interpretive choice of your translator.

 

[tall73]

This is what I meant when I responded "see what happens when I start a sola scriptura thread on Mark 1:15...

It did not take long.

Since you can never disagree with Ellen White's interpretation I reference her view so folks can see where your 1844 doctrine comes from. And it does not just come from Daniel, but from the Millerite movement, and its re-interpretation. It comes from giving a message that the words of Scripture rule out, and then says God intended for the false date-setting, Scripture ignoring message to be given, and condemns those who stood on Scripture.

And in this case that includes the confession that they didn't even know there was a sanctuary in heaven, and tried to claim other Christians did not. But of course that was not true. So I showed Christians in early centuries, and shortly before 1844 discussing Scripture, and they knew there was a book of Hebrews, and a heavenly sanctuary.

 

[The Liturgist]

BobRyan said:

Then why not start with the actuall details of Dan 7?? I notice that you reference not one of them in your post.

I think it is "instructive" that you are so quick to make claims about what Dan 7 is or is not about - yet fear to actually quote the Word of God - Dan 7 to make your case for or against something.

It is very noticeable that you often refuse to quote the text you are making your assertions about.

Is it possible that your comments would not benefit from the quote of the text ?

I would agree - you have been very reluctant to do that.

If the text has any value at all - it has value in understanding what it is saying. Refusing to quote the text while making sweeping claims about what it says - is a great to create 'distance from the text' and in that distance to include some logical error.

I trust the text itself.

Which is why I am so adamant about affirming it and quoting it.

Reread my post. I referred explicitly and unambiguously to specific sections of the text. You quoted from some verses which are from Nebuchadnezzar’s dream and some which are from St. Daniel’s interpretation of it. I find it extremely hurtful that one would suggest an ulterior motive to my religious objection to quoting the text itself, especially since I am willing to provide chapter and verse numbers.

 

[tall73]

So you do or do not agree with the Mark 1:15 statement about the 483 year period pointed to in Dan 9.

Of course I do.

Or did you want this thread to be about non-SDA Millerite history??

Millerite history IS SDA history, and the ones who didn't know there was a sanctuary were the same former Millerites who went on to found the Adventist church, but didn't know there was a heavenly sanctuary in the book of Hebrews.

Now if you didn't cram the 2300 days and Daniel 7 into this thread, there would be no need to mention any of that. But since you did, we cannot get the Adventist view just from those texts. So we have to mention Millerites, and their blindspots.

But I still discuss all of that while referencing Scriptures, including pointing out that her assessment of other people's view of Scripture was wrong. They were way ahead of Ellen White and the rest of the little band on understanding Hebrews in regards to the heavenly sanctuary.

Or is it your claim that Millerites affect your view of Mark 1:15

No, it is my claim that you stuck multiple topics together, so you will get multiple topics discussed. And some of those cannot be understood without Adventist history.

But it can all still be tested by Scripture. And @The Liturgist was quite right when he said that the texts which preclude date setting should have ruled out the Millerite history to start with. Except the Millerites seemed particularly impervious to the words of Scripture in this regard, though they admit it was mentioned to them again and again.


Matthew 24:4 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.

Matthew 24:36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

I Thessalonians 5:1 But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. 2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.

 

[tall73]

God knows the truth.
Some would say "Palm Sunday should not have happened" - because the disciples were wrong about what they said was about to happen.

Some being you and Ellen White, and Adventists?

The Scriptures do not say that! I thought you wanted an all Scripture thread? Jesus said if the disciples were quiet the rocks would cry out.

The message was true.

And for those reading, for whom the connection may not be overly clear, this tepid, incorrect and unbiblical response from Bob is the best defense he can muster for Ellen White saying that Miller's false message of Jesus coming in 1843 was "saving truth."

Bob doesn't deny that Ellen White said God was "testing" people with Miller's false, time-setting message that ignored the very words of Christ.

For those who want information they can see here:

Ellen White: William Miller's message of Jesus coming in 1843 was "heavenly".

William Miller, who started the Millerite movement, preached that Jesus' second coming would occur around 1843. Jesus did not return in 1843. Then the Millerites revised it to 1844. Jesus did not return in 1844. Eventually the Millerite movement settled on the date of Oct. 22, 1844. Jesus did...

www.christianforums.com

He just "defends" this by saying there was another false message in the Bible.

But the message the disciples gave on Palm Sunday was not false.

The message of Palm Sunday given by the disciples was a true message. Jesus is King. And He was about to take His throne. And the Bible text indicates that though the disciples did not know what they were doing, they nevertheless fulfilled the OT prophecy.

John 15:12 The next day a great multitude that had come to the feast, when they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem, 13 took branches of palm trees and went out to meet Him, and cried out: “Hosanna!‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’ The King of Israel!” 14 Then Jesus, when He had found a young donkey, sat on it; as it is written: 15 “Fear not, daughter of Zion; Behold, your King is coming, Sitting on a donkey’s colt.” 16 His disciples did not understand these things at first; but when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that these things were written about Him and that they had done these things to Him.

John makes clear that they did not understand these things. They expected Him to immediately cast off the Romans and redeem Israel, as we know from Luke 24, and you have pointed out on other occasions.

Yet despite this expecation their message was true. And Jesus said if they didn't give it the rocks would cry out.

Jesus declared that He is a King.

John 18:36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.” 37 Pilate therefore said to Him, “Are You a king then?” Jesus answered, “You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.”

And all the other gospels bear this out as well:

Matthew 27:11 And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest.

Mark 15: 2 And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answering said unto them, Thou sayest it

Luke 23:3 And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answered him and said, Thou sayest it.

Jesus is a King, and that is why they said your King comes to you. The disciples gave a true message. And Jesus was rightly greeted as King.

And after the Holy Spirit came upon the disciples at Pentecost, they now understood as well the true message they gave. Peter explains that Jesus sat on the throne as the Christ, the Son of David. He was exalted to God's right hand:

Acts 2:30 Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, 31 he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. 32 This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. 33 Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear. 34 “For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself: ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, 35 Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.” ’36 “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”

The message of the disciples was true.

But the message given by William Miller was not true. Jesus did not come in 1843, or 1844. And William Miller's message ignored the warnings in Scripture about setting dates for the return of Christ

Matthew 24:4 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.

Matthew 24:36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

I Thessalonians 5:1 But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. 2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.

 

[tall73]

Maybe you could put that into one of your all-ellen-white-all-the-time threads since apparently you are wrong about what your Early Writings quote was talking about with the phrase in your post "nominal churches".

This thread is about Mark 1:15 and Dan 9's 70 weeks prophecy.

Bob, this thread had three topics now, because you included the 2300 days, and Daniel 7, as well as Mark 1:15 and the 70 weeks of Daniel 9.

And you have not pointed out at all how I misunderstood the statement. But of course quoting Ellen White smearing Christians about their understanding of Scripture is related to the thread. Because other Christians did know about the book of Hebrews, and about the heavenly sanctuary, and it was Ellen White and her holdover millerite companions who did not know there was a heavenly sanctuary in Hebrews, per EGW, and who joined into the anti-biblical proclamation of the time of Jesus' coming in the first place, ignoring Scripture.

Matthew 24:4 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.

Matthew 24:36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

I Thessalonians 5:1 But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. 2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.

And it was ignoring, rather than ignorance in the case of Scriptures against date-setting, because it was quoted to them again and again as EGW admits.

Early Writings:

The saints anxiously waited for their Lord with fasting, watching, and almost constant prayer. Even some sinners looked forward to the time with terror; but the great mass manifested the spirit of Satan in their opposition to the message. They mocked and scoffed, repeating everywhere, "No man knoweth the day nor the hour." Evil angels urged them on to harden their hearts and to reject every ray of light from heaven, that they might be fastened in the snare of Satan.

So in EGW's version those who quoted Jesus' words, and acted on them were rejecting light from heaven.

No, those who preached a false date-setting, Scripture denying message about Jesus' second coming to earth happening in 1843, later revised to 1844 were rejecting light from heaven given from Jesus Himself centuries ago.

Matthew 24:4 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.

Matthew 24:36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

I Thessalonians 5:1 But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. 2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.

 

[tall73]

which is not the point of Dan 9's seventy week prophecy in vs 24-25 and is not the subject of Mark 1:15

According to you, you mean. But according to the Essenes at the time who were expecting the fulfillment of Daniel 9, it was. And according to the Adventist scholars I quoted, who explained why, etc.

 

[tall73]

1. This thread is not about Barnhouse

Sure. I was just giving the assessment of an evangelical who applied biblical testing to note that his impression was not much different than @The Liturgist 's regarding how the doctrine should have never come about if they had just gone by Scripture:

Matthew 24:4 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.

Matthew 24:36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

I Thessalonians 5:1 But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. 2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.

2. I never claimed that all non-SDAs agree with the Dan 7 chapter on the Investigative judgment, which is the same as the judgment in Rom 2:4-16, which is the same as the judgment we find in 2 Cor 5:10 ... there are a number of those other groups that have some odd ideas about what these chapters are talking about.

Ok.

However, 2 Corinthians 5 is not talking about the in absentia Adventist IJ.

2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.

In that text we actually appear. We RECEIVE the reward.

this thread is about Mark 1:15 and Dan 9:24-26 70week prophecy of 490 years pointing to Christ's first coming.
And it is about the connection between Dan 7 and Dan 8.
And it is about the pre-advent Investigative judgment in Dan 7 just as the chapter presents it

Yes Bob, why don't you go through the whole chapter and explain it. We know you will not. Because Ellen White (who I mention because you won't disagree with her on interpretation of Scripture) indicates that it is only professed people of God in the Adventist IJ.

The Great Controversy, 480
In the typical service only those who had come before God with confession and repentance, and whose sins, through the blood of the sin offering, were transferred to the sanctuary, had a part in the service of the Day of Atonement. So in the great day of final atonement and investigative judgment the only cases considered are those of the professed people of God. The judgment of the wicked is a distinct and separate work, and takes place at a later period.

But the chapter shows the powers which Adventists identify as Babylon, the Medes and Persians, as all being judged in this judgment, and having their authority taken away. And it shows the beast slain by this judgment.

Daniel 7:11 “I watched then because of the sound of the pompous words which the horn was speaking; I watched till the beast was slain, and its body destroyed and given to the burning flame. 12 As for the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away, yet their lives were prolonged for a season and a time.

The Babylonians, Medes, Persians and Romans were certainly NOT all professed people of God. But as she did with Daniel 8 she ignored the context of this passage, and therefore her statements are in conflict with the passage itself.

And of course, you still haven't addressed the glaring issue with regards to the type itself, which Adventists re-invented.

From the Adventist fundamental belief on the Sanctuary:

In 1844, at the end of the prophetic period of 2300 days, He entered the second and last phase of His atoning ministry, which was typified by the work of the high priest in the most holy place of the earthly sanctuary. It is a work of investigative judgment

Instead of what Leviticus 16 describes the High Priest as actually doing when He goes into the Most Holy Place on the Day of Atonement you have a judgement of individual cases, investigation of books, etc. None of that matches the text. Here is what the text says the high priest does when entering the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement:

Leviticus 16:15 “Then he shall kill the goat of the sin offering, which is for the people, bring its blood inside the veil, do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bull, and sprinkle it on the mercy seat and before the mercy seat. 16 So he shall make atonement for the Holy Place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions, for all their sins; and so he shall do for the tabernacle of meeting which remains among them in the midst of their uncleanness. 17 There shall be no man in the tabernacle of meeting when he goes in to make atonement in the Holy Place, until he comes out, that he may make atonement for himself, for his household, and for all the assembly of Israel.

The High Priest in the Most Holy Place applies cleansing blood to make atonement for the sanctuary and for all the assembly of Israel.

There is no reference to books, to investigation, or to individual cases. It is a corporate provision for the whole camp.

It is outside where those who do not afflict themselves are cut off from the camp. But there is no investigation work being done in the type by the High Priest.

Jesus provided that entry by means of blood into God's presence for us in the first century. Now we accept it or not, and are cut off or not.

Hebrews 1:3b When He had by Himself made purfication of sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high

Hebrews 9:11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. 12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the holies once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.

Hebrews 9:23 Therefore it was necessary that the copies of the things in the heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25 not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another— 26 He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself

The text says Jesus entered once for all, by means of blood. That won't be happening again, because it already happened. So Ellen White's vision of the door for the first time being opened to the Most Holy Place is wrong:

(Review and Herald, August 1, 1849 par. 2)

This door was not opened, until the mediation of Jesus was finished in the Holy Place of the Sanctuary in 1844. Then, Jesus rose up, and shut the door in the Holy Place, and opened the door in the Most Holy, and passed within the second vail, where he now stands by the Ark; and where the faith of Israel now reaches. (Review and Herald, August 1, 1849 par. 2)

Hebrews 9:11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. 12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the holy places once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.

Entry was not "by means of" blood into the first compartment of the sanctuary. And goats blood only went into the sanctuary on two occasions, the inauguration, and the Day of Atonement.

And here Jesus did it once for all, in the first century. There will be no more entries.

Jesus already entered into God's presence for us:

9:24 For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us

 

[tall73]

BobRyan said:

It is very noticeable that you often refuse to quote the text you are making your assertions about.

If that is his conviction you will just have to work around it, rather than placing a stumbling block before him, even if you think him weak in faith.

 

[tall73]

-

There is nothing stated in Dan 9 about the Eschaton or last trumpet or resurrection. Try and actual quote of Dan 7 or Dan 9.

Well the end is referenced:

Daniel 7:16 I came near to one of those who stood by, and asked him the truth of all this. So he told me and made known to me the interpretation of these things: 17 ‘Those great beasts, which are four, are four kings which arise out of the earth. 18 But the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom, and possess the kingdom forever, even forever and ever.’

The passage appears to extend even into the period where the saints possess the kingdom forever, even forever and ever.

And this first portion of the explanation matches the context. God is Sovereign over all, and judges the nations, including the kings represented by the beasts in the vision. His kingdom will last forever.

Where we find the court room in heaven vs 9-11, judgement vs 22, the court sits and the books are opened vs 9-10 and judgment is eventually passed "in favor of the saints" vs 22...

If you are doing to make a statement about Dan 7 - then use the words of the actual chapter... pick a verse in it.

Well then perhaps you should have posted more of the context of that verse:

Daniel 7:21 “I was watching; and the same horn was making war against the saints, and prevailing against them, 22 until the Ancient of Days came, and a judgment was made in favor of the saints of the Most High, and the time came for the saints to possess the kingdom.

23 “Thus he said:
‘The fourth beast shall be
A fourth kingdom on earth,
Which shall be different from all other kingdoms,
And shall devour the whole earth,
Trample it and break it in pieces.
24 The ten horns are ten kings
Who shall arise from this kingdom.
And another shall rise after them;
He shall be different from the first ones,
And shall subdue three kings.
25 He shall speak pompous words against the Most High,
Shall persecute[j] the saints of the Most High,
And shall intend to change times and law.
Then the saints shall be given into his hand
For a time and times and half a time.

26 ‘But the court shall be seated,
And they shall take away his dominion,
To consume and destroy it forever.
27 Then the kingdom and dominion,
And the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven,
Shall be given to the people, the saints of the Most High.
His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom,
And all dominions shall serve and obey Him.’

We see multiple references to the time when the saints possess the kingdom, and to the Kingdom of the most high lasting forever, which certainly seems to deal with the end.

But also, note that they are corporately called saints, and the little horn was prevailing against them prior to the convening of the judgment.

The saints corporately are given judgment in favor of them AGAINST the little horn. The little horn is persecuting them, but then his dominion is taken away. The saints are delivered, and then reign forever in the kingdom of the Most High.

This does not show the Adventist IJ.

First, I already noted in the vision portion that the other beasts also have their authority stripped in this judgment. But also the saints are identified as a group, with no confusion as to who they are, prior to the judgment commencing.

The issue dealt with in the entire chapter is the kingdoms of this earth reign only as the Most High allows, that He will remove their dominion, and His kingdom will last forever and ever when He judges them, and delivers his saints from them.

There are texts that speak of individual judgment, including believers. But they are not the in absentia Adventist IJ:

For example:

10 But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. 11 For it is written:

“As I live, says the Lord,
Every knee shall bow to Me,
And every tongue shall confess to God.”
12 So then each of us shall give account of himself to God.

Standing before the judgment seat
Kneeling
Bowing
Tongue Confessing
Giving an account of oneself

These are all things that will happen when we must appear before God. But the Adventist IJ does not have these things because we are not there at all in the Adventist IJ.

thus bringing in the age of Christ's rule - just as the chapter states????

Well look at that, even you seemed to realize the end was in view, as @The Liturgist alleged when referencing the eschaton.

 

[BobRyan]

Most of Daniel 7, possible all, is about the Eschaton, although many consider part of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream to be a prophecy of the ancient empires starting with his, and then the Persians which would defeat him, followed by the Greeks under Alexander, followed by the Romans, although the one problem with that interpretation is that Rome never conquered the city of Babylon or its successor Seleucia-Cstesiphon, as these always fell under the control of the Achaemenids and later the Sassanian Persian Empire, which Ancient Rome was in something of a Cold War with.

Babylon had fallen to the Persians long before that, the Persian empire was conquered by the Greeks long before Rome. All Rome had to do when it came along was conquer the Greek empire - which we both know -- it did.

the point remains.

Details matter.

The four empire sequence of Dan 2 -- repeated in Dan 7 - remains in tact . Proven historically and this is irrefutable.

No, you have it wrong. You are interpreting literally not only those verses of prophecy meant to be interpreted as typological prophecy of the eschaton, which are in the interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, but also Nebuchadenzzar’s dream itself, which makes no sense in the context of the text, because even if we were to accept that the interpretation of the dream by the Holy Prophet Daniel was to be taken in a literal rather than symbolic context,

Interpretation is literal in all cases but the vision uses symbols - that it how apocalyptic prophecy works. I think we all knew that by now. The interpretation is that which "interprets the symbols" in the dream.

How is this even a little bit confusing in your POV?? It looks to me like your method of distancing yourself from the actual words of the text is not serving you well.

which by the way would render most of the Christological prophecy in the Old Testament effectively meaningless, even with that hermeneutic error

Interesting accusation - but you offer nothing in the text our out of it to prove it.

, people who make that error of hyper-Alexandrian exegesis still recognize that the dream itself of Nebuchadnezzar cannot be interpreted literally,

It is apocalyptic literature - no one is claiming that a literal lion ruled the world in Dan 7 or that a golden head ruled the world in Dan 2. Your policy of distancing yourself from the actual words of the text - is not serving your response well.

because the Holy Prophet Daniel provides an interpretation of it which proves that it is symbolic.

Lack of attention to details is not helping you. No one has argued that a literal lion in Dan 7 ruled the world or that a literal bear took over the empire of Babylon and setup the Persian empire.

I accept it as important prophecy, but I reject outright your interpretation of it because you conflate the contents of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream with St. Daniel’s interpretation of it.

An accusation you cannot prove simply by repeating it. You have to have actual details to make your accusation stick.

I am tired of profaning scriptural texts by quoting them outside of the Divine Liturgy.

I don't see how you can be tired of quoting scripture when as we see here - you almost never do quote it and have stated your determination not to prove your point regarding the text - by actually making your case from the text of scripture.

At most, I am willing to describe, paraphrase, or refer by verse number, except in limited instances

You realize that the Word of God matters much more in these discussions than what you or I "think of it". No one here is going to adopt a view just because you have your favorite paraphrase that sufficiently skims over sufficient details in the text. That is not compelling.

I don't understand how that is even a little bit confusing. Can you explain it for us?

if I felt a need in discussions with you to quote one of the many very important books which you do not accept as canonical, because, correct me if I’m wrong, you know the contents of the 66 books accepted by your church as canonical.

Your church accepts the same 66 books as being canonical - as mine does, and we both know it.
I have quoted no text of scripture in this discussion on this thread that BOTH of our churches do not fully accept as canonical - and we both know it.

The difference is that you have 11 other books not in the Hebrew Bible that you regard as OT - and none of them have been quoted here - which I suppose should bring you some level of satisfaction since you keep insisting on not quoting the Bible text.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:

There is nothing stated in Dan 9 about the Eschaton or last trumpet or resurrection. Try and actual quote of Dan 7 or Dan 9.

Well the end is referenced:

Daniel 7:16 I came near to one of those who stood by, and asked him the truth of all this. So he told me and made known to me the interpretation of these things: 17 ‘Those great beasts, which are four, are four kings which arise out of the earth. 18 But the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom, and possess the kingdom forever, even forever and ever.’

The passage appears to extend even into the period where the saints possess the kingdom forever, even forever and ever.

True. I made a mistake including Dan 7 and 9 when I said that the chapter had no mention of the eschaton. I was focused on Dan 9 - I should not have included Dan 7 in my remark about Eschaton

 

[BobRyan]

Note Dan 7 -

Where we find the court room in heaven vs 9-11, judgement vs 22, the court sits and the books are opened vs 9-10 and judgment is eventually passed "in favor of the saints" vs 22...

In other words - "the text" not simply

when Christ Pantocrator will assume the dread judgement seat of God and the Book of Life will be opened, with the saved going to the World to Come and the reprobate being damned to the outer darkness for all eternity.

Rev 20 is the only chapter that gets close - and that is not the Dan 7 topic at all.

If you are doing to make a statement about Dan 7 - then use the words of the actual chapter... pick a verse in it.

You seem to be using basically the same text all Christians understand as the basis for the Last Judgement

No matter who else thinks what - the chapter cannot be understood by carefully avoiding it.

the unique interpretation of the Investigative Judgement as presented by Ellen G. White

Looking carefully at the OP - we find that the verses matter and that your "as presented by Ellen White" is not even remotely in the topic.
There are "others" who are trying to start some all-ellen-white-all-the-time threads but this is not one of them.

So, since there is a lack of any specific scripture to support the doctrine of the Investigative Judgement

The Dan 7 chapter that you are ignoring is the one with those texts.. Why not address your comments to the actual verses in the chapter or is it your clam that Dan 7 does not exist so therefore there is no pre-advent Dan 7 judgment where the court sits and the books are opened and judgment is eventually passed "in favor of the saint" thus bringing in the age of Christ's rule - just as the chapter states????

note that they are corporately called saints, and the little horn was prevailing against them prior to the convening of the judgment.

The saints corporately are given judgment in favor of them AGAINST the little horn.

It is in favor of the saints. And the little horn persecution of the saints ends once that judgment (as detailed in Rom 2:4-16) is complete. Only then does the Kingdom of Christ rule on Earth.

There is ZERO indication in the text that the little horn's condemnation is "in doubt" at any point during that judgment.

The little horn is persecuting them, but then his dominion is taken away. The saints are delivered,

Only at the point that judgment is passed in favor of the saints.

This does not show the Adventist IJ.

Until you notice the details in the text.

as we see in this Dan 7 focused thread --

Adventists affirm Dan 7 pre-advent Investigative judgment (and then Dan 8 and Dan 9 for it being started in 1844)

Dan 7 describes the pre-advent Investigative judgment - vs 9-10 Pre-Advent Investigative (review of books, records in heaven by "the court") -- vs 21-22 "Judgment passed in favor of the saints" -- so they are being evaluated/reviewed/discussed (as Rom 2:4-16 describes it)...

www.christianforums.com

First, I already noted in the vision portion that the other beasts also have their authority stripped in this judgment.

Which changes nothing and is not something that I have challenged in my statements about Dan 7 either here on this thread or on the Dan 7 focused thread

Adventists affirm Dan 7 pre-advent Investigative judgment (and then Dan 8 and Dan 9 for it being started in 1844)

Dan 7 describes the pre-advent Investigative judgment - vs 9-10 Pre-Advent Investigative (review of books, records in heaven by "the court") -- vs 21-22 "Judgment passed in favor of the saints" -- so they are being evaluated/reviewed/discussed (as Rom 2:4-16 describes it)...

www.christianforums.com

But also the saints are identified as a group, with no confusion as to who they are

They are included in the judgment of Dan 7:9-10 and even you would know that identifying them would involve that judgment.
This is irrefutable.

The issue dealt with in the entire chapter is the kingdoms of this earth reign only as the Most High allows, that He will remove their dominion, and His kingdom will last forever and ever when He judges them, and delivers his saints from them.

No doubt that deleting almost all the details in Dan 7 does leave at least that bit -- left.
I choose not to do that.

There are texts that speak of individual judgment, including believers.

There is that pesky Rom 2:4-16 text that I keep bringing which in fact does that very thing. It describes the judgment of Dan 7 - in detail.

 

[BobRyan]

I have been uncomfortable quoting verses of scripture in polemics on CF.com for some time

I would agree - you have been very reluctant to do that.

, and I am now convicted of the fact that to do so would constitute a profanation of the text

If the text has any value at all - it has value in understanding what it is saying. Refusing to quote the text while making sweeping claims about what it says - is a great way to create 'distance from the text' and in that distance to include some logical error.

I trust the text itself.

If that is his conviction you will just have to work around it, rather than placing a stumbling block before him, even if you think him weak in faith.

I have responded to many textless arguments where wild accusations are made regarding a chapter but no detail in the word of God is then cited to support the accusation against a group, or against a given POV.

I call it "free will" and simply note that people are free to speculate anything they wish and can avoid the text of scripture if that is what they need to do in those cases. I am not here to force someone's free will to engaging in a more substantive/compelling form of response.

for an actual discussion to take place -- there needs to be at least some common reference point of "Truth" -- I choose "scripture" - you might be familiar with this idea.

 

[BobRyan]

If someone would like to propose a way to discuss the OP and topic of Mark 1:15, Dan 9 and the 70 weeks without actually quoting the Bible-- and it is a reliable proven method where various points of view reconcile - please provide your example.

Lacking that - I suggest we stick with the idea that the Bible is worth quoting to see what the text says and how it fits any given suggestions someone might wish to make about what the text means.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Certain persons with so little substance to add to a discussion sure use a lot of words to do so.

We would call this verbal diarrhea.

 

[tall73]

True. I made a mistake including Dan 7 and 9 when I said that the chapter had no mention of the eschaton. I was focused on Dan 9 - I should not have included Dan 7 in my remark about Eschaton

Fair enough.