I'm not refering to any verses, I'm refering to EGW, when she uses the phrase, "at this time" what does she mean, in your esteemed opinion.
Upvote
0
Revisiting Daniel 12
- Thread starter taikachanz
- Start date
It is necessary that our unity today be of a character that will bear the test of trial. . . . We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and Heaven alone are infallible. Those who think that they will never have to give up a cherished view, never have occasion to change an opinion, will be disappointed. As long as we hold to our own ideas and opinions with determined persistency, we cannot have the unity for which Christ prayed. {CET 203.2}
When a brother receives new light upon the Scriptures, he should frankly explain his position, and
204
every minister should search the Scriptures with the spirit of candor to see if the points presented can be substantiated by the inspired word. "The servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth." 2 Timothy 2:24, 25. {CET 203.3}
Led of God, but Not Infallible.--We must not think, "Well, we have all the truth, we understand the main pillars of our faith, and we may rest on this knowledge." The truth is an advancing truth, and we must walk in the increasing light. {CW 33.2}
Investigation of Doctrine.--There is no excuse for anyone in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation. {CW 35.2}
We are living in perilous times, and it does not become us to accept everything claimed to be truth without examining it thoroughly; neither can we afford to reject anything that bears the fruits of the Spirit of God; but we should be teachable, meek and lowly of heart. There are those who oppose everything that is not in accordance with their own ideas, and by so doing they endanger their eternal interest as verily as did the Jewish nation in their rejection of Christ. {CW 35.3}
The Lord designs that our opinions shall be put to the test, that we may see the necessity of closely examining the living oracles to see whether or not we are in the faith. Many who claim to believe the truth have settled down at their ease, saying, "I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing." --Review and Herald, December 20, 1892. {CW 36.1}
Men entertain errors, when the truth is clearly marked out; and if they would but bring their doctrines to the word of God, and not read the word of God in the light of their doctrines, to prove their ideas right, they would not walk in darkness and blindness, or cherish error. Many give the words of Scripture a meaning that suits their own opinions, and they mislead themselves and deceive others by their misinterpretations of God's word. {CW 36.3}
As we take up the study of God's word, we should do so with humble hearts. All selfishness, all love of originality, should be laid aside. Long-cherished opinions must not be regarded as infallible. It was the unwillingness of the Jews to give up their long-established traditions that proved their ruin. They were determined not to see any flaw in their own opinions or in their expositions of the Scriptures; but however long men may have entertained certain views, if they are not clearly sustained by the written word, they should be discarded. Those who sincerely desire truth will not be reluctant to lay open their positions for investigation and criticism, and will not be annoyed if their opinions and ideas are crossed. This was the spirit cherished among us forty years ago. . . . {CW 36.4}
Question: who were the testimonies writen for, what of the church teaching books such as Eduction, Letters to Writers and Editors. EGW had two types of books; those for the church and those for the lost. The books for the lost included the Great Controversy Series, Steps to Christ and other such books designed to lead lost souls to Christ. The other were written specifically for the church and in them she uses the inclusive word "we" to include herself.
We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and heaven alone are infallible. Those who think that they will never have to give up a cherished view, never have occasion to change an opinion, will be disappointed. As long as we hold to our own ideas and opinions with determined persistency, we cannot have the unity for which Christ prayed. {CW 37.1}
How shall we search the Scriptures in order to understand what they teach? We should come to the investigation of God's word with a contrite heart, a teachable and prayerful spirit. We are not to think, as did the Jews, that our own ideas and opinions are infallible; nor with the papists, that certain individuals are the sole guardians of truth and knowledge, that men have no right to search the Scriptures for themselves, but must accept the explanations given by the Fathers of the church. We should not study the Bible for the purpose of sustaining our preconceived opinions, but with the single object of learning what God has said. {GW92 125.1}
Some have feared that if in even a single point they acknowledge themselves in error, other minds would be led to doubt the whole theory of truth. Therefore they have felt that investigation should not be permitted; that it would tend to dissension and disunion. But if such is to be the result of investigation, the sooner it comes the better. If there are those whose faith in God's word will not stand the test of an investigation of the Scriptures, the sooner they are revealed the better; for then the way will be opened to show them their error. We cannot hold that a position once taken, an idea once advocated, is not, under any circumstances, to be relinquished. There is but one who is infallible,--He who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. {GW92 125.2}
See, I can do this too. Will you listen?
When a brother receives new light upon the Scriptures, he should frankly explain his position, and
204
every minister should search the Scriptures with the spirit of candor to see if the points presented can be substantiated by the inspired word. "The servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth." 2 Timothy 2:24, 25. {CET 203.3}
Led of God, but Not Infallible.--We must not think, "Well, we have all the truth, we understand the main pillars of our faith, and we may rest on this knowledge." The truth is an advancing truth, and we must walk in the increasing light. {CW 33.2}
Investigation of Doctrine.--There is no excuse for anyone in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation. {CW 35.2}
We are living in perilous times, and it does not become us to accept everything claimed to be truth without examining it thoroughly; neither can we afford to reject anything that bears the fruits of the Spirit of God; but we should be teachable, meek and lowly of heart. There are those who oppose everything that is not in accordance with their own ideas, and by so doing they endanger their eternal interest as verily as did the Jewish nation in their rejection of Christ. {CW 35.3}
The Lord designs that our opinions shall be put to the test, that we may see the necessity of closely examining the living oracles to see whether or not we are in the faith. Many who claim to believe the truth have settled down at their ease, saying, "I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing." --Review and Herald, December 20, 1892. {CW 36.1}
Men entertain errors, when the truth is clearly marked out; and if they would but bring their doctrines to the word of God, and not read the word of God in the light of their doctrines, to prove their ideas right, they would not walk in darkness and blindness, or cherish error. Many give the words of Scripture a meaning that suits their own opinions, and they mislead themselves and deceive others by their misinterpretations of God's word. {CW 36.3}
As we take up the study of God's word, we should do so with humble hearts. All selfishness, all love of originality, should be laid aside. Long-cherished opinions must not be regarded as infallible. It was the unwillingness of the Jews to give up their long-established traditions that proved their ruin. They were determined not to see any flaw in their own opinions or in their expositions of the Scriptures; but however long men may have entertained certain views, if they are not clearly sustained by the written word, they should be discarded. Those who sincerely desire truth will not be reluctant to lay open their positions for investigation and criticism, and will not be annoyed if their opinions and ideas are crossed. This was the spirit cherished among us forty years ago. . . . {CW 36.4}
Question: who were the testimonies writen for, what of the church teaching books such as Eduction, Letters to Writers and Editors. EGW had two types of books; those for the church and those for the lost. The books for the lost included the Great Controversy Series, Steps to Christ and other such books designed to lead lost souls to Christ. The other were written specifically for the church and in them she uses the inclusive word "we" to include herself.
We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and heaven alone are infallible. Those who think that they will never have to give up a cherished view, never have occasion to change an opinion, will be disappointed. As long as we hold to our own ideas and opinions with determined persistency, we cannot have the unity for which Christ prayed. {CW 37.1}
How shall we search the Scriptures in order to understand what they teach? We should come to the investigation of God's word with a contrite heart, a teachable and prayerful spirit. We are not to think, as did the Jews, that our own ideas and opinions are infallible; nor with the papists, that certain individuals are the sole guardians of truth and knowledge, that men have no right to search the Scriptures for themselves, but must accept the explanations given by the Fathers of the church. We should not study the Bible for the purpose of sustaining our preconceived opinions, but with the single object of learning what God has said. {GW92 125.1}
Some have feared that if in even a single point they acknowledge themselves in error, other minds would be led to doubt the whole theory of truth. Therefore they have felt that investigation should not be permitted; that it would tend to dissension and disunion. But if such is to be the result of investigation, the sooner it comes the better. If there are those whose faith in God's word will not stand the test of an investigation of the Scriptures, the sooner they are revealed the better; for then the way will be opened to show them their error. We cannot hold that a position once taken, an idea once advocated, is not, under any circumstances, to be relinquished. There is but one who is infallible,--He who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. {GW92 125.2}
See, I can do this too. Will you listen?
Upvote
0
Instead of addressing the issue of the validity of Miller's hypothesis concerning Daniel 12, and mine for a need to revaluate it you jumble this thread with endless, meaningless drivel..why?
Upvote
0
Leuko Petra
Following The Lamb
Please cite the reference [work and page] to which you are referring, thank you.
Upvote
0
I already alluded to this as the problem with trying to reinterpret what William Miller already had done. Notice this is concerning the 2300-year period. They had not recognized that Daniel 12 was a seperate prophecy so instead of trying to locate the beginning of this prophecy they were trying to find a new end date for the 2300-year prophecy, which, they believed, would usher in the Second Advent.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
You are obviously uninformed as to the teachings of the early advent movement. Had you this knowledge your expose on the daily would be quite different. You intimate that the idea that the daily was considered paganism came up after 1844 is entirely wrong. As proof I present William Miller's own view, which he would have and did pass along to those who took up his views, including EGW:
"I have come to this conclusion: that this power, called daily sacrifice, is Rome pagan abomination;" , Views OF THE PROPHECIES AND PROPHETIC CHRONOLOGY, SELECTED FROM MANUSCRIPTS OF WILLIAM MILLER WITH A MEMOIR OF HIS LIFE; BY JOSHUA V. HIMES
These are Miller's own words, and this document can be found online as I've stated before.
"I have come to this conclusion: that this power, called daily sacrifice, is Rome pagan abomination;" , Views OF THE PROPHECIES AND PROPHETIC CHRONOLOGY, SELECTED FROM MANUSCRIPTS OF WILLIAM MILLER WITH A MEMOIR OF HIS LIFE; BY JOSHUA V. HIMES
These are Miller's own words, and this document can be found online as I've stated before.
Upvote
0
Notice her statement "before 1844, nearly all were united on the correct view of the "daily";" William Miller had set the veiw prior to 1844 and I have already shown what that view was. Need I say more?
Upvote
0
Petra, I just read your profile and now I understand where you're coming from. You are no real follower of EGW's writings, as can be seen by your distorted explanations. You had me wondering until I checked you out. Had you been a follower of her works you would still be an SDA and not a "remnant of the remnant" for she has told us that the church would go through to the end. And that when the shaking took place it would be those who were to fall away that would be shaken out. It is no wonder that you are unwilling to study this issue honestly.
Upvote
0
Castaway57
Born Twice
Because of your signature; and the title of this thread, may I suggest that we just start at the beginning, and do a verse by verse study on Daniel 12, and filling in context as we go? Otherwise, this subject will get too confusing.
Here is the text of Daniel 12:
It is my suggestion that because of verse 1, we have to begin by knowing what's meant by the phrase "at that time."
"At that time" is a definite reference to something in the previous chapter, Daniel 11. What could this be?
I would also suggest that Daniel and Revelation complement and amplify one another, and based on that thought, I am thinking that Daniel, in 12:1, is referring to Rev 3:10
WDYT?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Finally, someone with a willingness to at least look at this logically. Good suggestion. I hope you at least understand my point of all this.
This must be for those with out an AKJV bible.
It is actually hard to seperate Daniel 1 for Daniel 2 & 3 as these are an extension of Daniel 1 and really set the time of Daniel on as the last day(s), actually it appears as if these may be the last moments. But, as I've asked for a reasonable discussion on the matter, I am willing to intertain other views.
I believe that Revelation is an extention of Daniel, (My keying device is messed up, the key between "e" and "t" does not function) to the point, it is a detailed playback in hi-def. (how's that?) I'm not seeing what it is.
Upvote
0
Castaway57
Born Twice
I am not intending to be offensive or anything, but I am actually not sure yet, what your point is in this topic. That being said, I see some others have provided distractions, so this is why I suggested we organize the study a bit by starting with the Bible text referred to with the title of this thread.Finally, someone with a willingness to at least look at this logically. Good suggestion. I hope you at least understand my point of all this.
This must be for those with out an AKJV bible.
I am just using the King James Version; but if you have a favorite version; I can use that too. I have many different Bible versions.
What do you think about my comment/question re Daniel 12:1 ?
Upvote
0
I only use the AKJV Bible, it is the most accurate english bible to be found. Not only that but it is the one the founders of the SDA used and continued to use until EGW died.
AS to your reference to Daniel 12:1 and Revelation 3:10, I really don't see a big correlation between the two. As I stated previously, Daniel 12:1 is can not stand alone without also looking at 12:2 & 3. These together set the stage, time period, in which this occurs. If we also consider Daniel 11:54 we see, and this is speaking of the Anti-christ here, that this matches Rome in its placing of "tabernalces" where it will, especially in the "Holy Land". We therefore must ask ourselves. "Does God have a "Holy Land" on the earth today and if so, does He also have a "Holy Place" within that "Holy Land". I have already addressed this in an earlier thread.
(I have to make my replies short as the computer I am now working on has a tendency to shut down without notice.)
AS to your reference to Daniel 12:1 and Revelation 3:10, I really don't see a big correlation between the two. As I stated previously, Daniel 12:1 is can not stand alone without also looking at 12:2 & 3. These together set the stage, time period, in which this occurs. If we also consider Daniel 11:54 we see, and this is speaking of the Anti-christ here, that this matches Rome in its placing of "tabernalces" where it will, especially in the "Holy Land". We therefore must ask ourselves. "Does God have a "Holy Land" on the earth today and if so, does He also have a "Holy Place" within that "Holy Land". I have already addressed this in an earlier thread.
(I have to make my replies short as the computer I am now working on has a tendency to shut down without notice.)
Upvote
0
Castaway57
Born Twice
But you are in agreement that Dan 12 time frame is dependent on looking at Daniel, chapter 11?
Upvote
0
Leuko Petra
Following The Lamb
We should begin by looking at Daniel 10, as it really is the start of an entire section, being Daniel 10-12, which is a compliment to Daniel 8-9, which is built upon Daniel 1-7.
Here is how Daniel 10:1 begins-
In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a thing was revealed unto Daniel, whose name was called Belteshazzar; and the thing was true, but the time appointed was long: and he understood the thing, and had understanding of the vision. Daniel 10:1
Let us keep in mind that there are technically no chapter breaks per se, as these things as Daniel 12:1, etc were additions to the text later, and actually hinder study in certain cases like the one we are now on. There are also certain palces in Revelation that it also hinders.
Daniel 12:1, reads:
And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. Daniel 12:1
Who is still speaking in this verse? It can only be someone that was speaking in the previous "chapters", being Daniel 11 and Daniel 10.
Also, what is under discussion in Daniel 12? The very same things connected with those things being given in Daniel 10 and 11. Notice that in Daniel 10:1, we see that Daniel was to come to have understanding of "the vision". What "vision"? The previous "vision" of Daniel 8, and also partially explained in Daniel 9.
Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation. Daniel 9:21
The "vision" at the "beginning" of what? Consider Daniel 8:1-2:
In the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar a vision appeared unto me, even unto me Daniel, after that which appeared unto me at the first. Daniel 8:1
And I saw in a vision; and it came to pass, when I saw, that I was at Shushan in the palace, which is in the province of Elam; and I saw in a vision, and I was by the river of Ulai. Daniel 8:2
And he informed me, and talked with me, and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding. Daniel 9:22
"Skill" and "understanding" in what? It is the very "vision" of Daniel 8. How can we know? By the very text of Daniel 8 itself.
And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days. Daniel 8:26
And I Daniel fainted, and was sick certain days; afterward I rose up, and did the king's business; and I was astonished at the vision, but none understood it. Daniel 8:27
See, there was not full understanding of that "vision" and so Gabriel came back later in Daniel 9 to give more light on it, but there was not a full explanation given therein. The part explained was merely the 490 years of the 2,300 year prophecy of Daniel 8:
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? Daniel 8:13
And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed. Daniel 8:14
And it came to pass, when I, even I Daniel, had seen the vision, and sought for the meaning, then, behold, there stood before me as the appearance of a man. Daniel 8:15
And I heard a man's voice between the banks of Ulai, which called, and said, Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision. Daniel 8:16
That "man's voice" is Jesus Christ/Michael, telling Gabriel to make Daniel understand.
So he came near where I stood: and when he came, I was afraid, and fell upon my face: but he said unto me, Understand, O son of man: for at the time of the end shall be the vision. Daniel 8:17
Notice, Gabriel specifically says "time of the end", and "vision". This is that time period of 1798-1844.
And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation: for at the time appointed the end shall be. Daniel 8:19
Notice the words "time appointed" and "the end".
In Daniel 9, we see that Gabriel came back years later, to help Daniel come to more understanding of the vision of Daniel 8.
At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to shew thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision. Daniel 9:23
Daniel has no "vision" in Daniel 9, and therefore, Gabriel is refering to that "vision" of Daniel 8, which none "understood".
As Daniel 8 begins with Medo-Persia:
And I saw in a vision; and it came to pass, when I saw, that I was at Shushan in the palace, which is in the province of Elam; and I saw in a vision, and I was by the river of Ulai. Daniel 8:2
Then I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and, behold, there stood before the river a ram which had two horns: and the two horns were high; but one was higher than the other, and the higher came up last. Daniel 8:3
The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia. Daniel 8:20
So, too does Daniel 11, which continues from Daniel 10:
Also I in the first year of Darius the Mede, even I, stood to confirm and to strengthen him. Daniel 11:1
And now will I shew thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all: and by his strength through his riches he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia. Daniel 11:2
Daniel 8 and 11, basically parallel. Daniel 8 is the "vision" with partial explanation, and more is given in Daniel 9 of the same vision. Daniel 10-12, then is a greater explanation of the "vision" of Daniel 8 [which includes Daniel 9], for it too begins with Medo-Persia.
In Daniel 10, Daniel sees Jesus in Vision, and faints, then Gabriel comes touches Daniel, and begins speaking and giving the explanation.
Jesus is seen in both Daniel 8, and Daniel 10 and 12. Daniel 10:14, speaks of those things in regards to the 2,300 days [evening/morngins] of Daniel 8:
Now I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days: for yet the vision is for many days. Daniel 10:14
And, behold, one like the similitude of the sons of men touched my lips: then I opened my mouth, and spake, and said unto him that stood before me, O my lord, by the vision my sorrows are turned upon me, and I have retained no strength. Daniel 10:16
Daniel asks Gabriel to continue speaking about the "vision":
And said, O man greatly beloved, fear not: peace be unto thee, be strong, yea, be strong. And when he had spoken unto me, I was strengthened, and said, Let my lord speak; for thou hast strengthened me. Daniel 10:19
Gabriel then speaks from hereon all the way into Daniel 12:4:
Then said he, Knowest thou wherefore I come unto thee? and now will I return to fight with the prince of Persia: and when I am gone forth, lo, the prince of Grecia shall come. Daniel 10:20
But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince. Daniel 10:21
Gabriel was about to open to Daniel the scripture of truth [iow books of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, etc] which already showed a type of the end events in them! Even Daniel had already been reading Jeremiah [Daniel 9:2]. if one were to actually look at Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and Exodus, etc and the wars in between, one will find the historical type of the endtime anti-type in them! Kings of the North [Babylon] and Kings of the South [Egypt], the surrounding of Jerusalem twice [two seiges], and escaping in between by Jeremiah, just like had been in another type in the days of Jesus, with the Roman armies!
Daniel 11:1 continues Daniel 10 with Gabriel still speaking:
Also I in the first year of Darius the Mede, even I, stood to confirm and to strengthen him. Daniel 11:1
Garbiel was sent from Jesus/Michael to strengthen the King Darius the Mede, from the influence of Satan, as we saw in the previous verses also [Daniel 10:13,20]. We can see this struggle in the backgroun in Isaiah, Ezekiel, Exodus, etc where Satan is attempting to thwart the prophecies of God by interferring with the Kings.
By the time we get to the end of Daniel 11:45, it transitions right into Daniel 12:1, without any break. Gabriel is still speaking up to Daniel 12:4.
When looking at Daniel 12:1, and "at that time", we see that it refers to that which is previously given in Daniel 11. The events from Daniel 11:40{b}-11:45. As pointed out by another, Daniel 12:1 is also linked with Revelation, events specifically Revelation 3:10, but also others, like Revelation 3:20 "door". Why? For Daniel 12:1, is related to Luke 13:25, for Just as Michael stands, intercession ending, so too, in Luke 13:25, the Master of the house is arisen up and shuts to the "door". We may read of this "door", and even "judge" also in James 5:9, and again we may link this with Matthew 25:10, Mark 13:29 and Luke 13:25 in the same events along with Revelation 22:11, etc.
Daniel 12:1 is not a stand alone text, and is not a separate thought from Daniel 11, etc, but is linked in the narrative, in language, in structure, in symbolism, etc to the other portions of Daniel and Revelation and the Gospels.
Here is how Daniel 10:1 begins-
In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a thing was revealed unto Daniel, whose name was called Belteshazzar; and the thing was true, but the time appointed was long: and he understood the thing, and had understanding of the vision. Daniel 10:1
Let us keep in mind that there are technically no chapter breaks per se, as these things as Daniel 12:1, etc were additions to the text later, and actually hinder study in certain cases like the one we are now on. There are also certain palces in Revelation that it also hinders.
Daniel 12:1, reads:
And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. Daniel 12:1
Who is still speaking in this verse? It can only be someone that was speaking in the previous "chapters", being Daniel 11 and Daniel 10.
Also, what is under discussion in Daniel 12? The very same things connected with those things being given in Daniel 10 and 11. Notice that in Daniel 10:1, we see that Daniel was to come to have understanding of "the vision". What "vision"? The previous "vision" of Daniel 8, and also partially explained in Daniel 9.
Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation. Daniel 9:21
The "vision" at the "beginning" of what? Consider Daniel 8:1-2:
In the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar a vision appeared unto me, even unto me Daniel, after that which appeared unto me at the first. Daniel 8:1
And I saw in a vision; and it came to pass, when I saw, that I was at Shushan in the palace, which is in the province of Elam; and I saw in a vision, and I was by the river of Ulai. Daniel 8:2
And he informed me, and talked with me, and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding. Daniel 9:22
"Skill" and "understanding" in what? It is the very "vision" of Daniel 8. How can we know? By the very text of Daniel 8 itself.
And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days. Daniel 8:26
And I Daniel fainted, and was sick certain days; afterward I rose up, and did the king's business; and I was astonished at the vision, but none understood it. Daniel 8:27
See, there was not full understanding of that "vision" and so Gabriel came back later in Daniel 9 to give more light on it, but there was not a full explanation given therein. The part explained was merely the 490 years of the 2,300 year prophecy of Daniel 8:
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? Daniel 8:13
And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed. Daniel 8:14
And it came to pass, when I, even I Daniel, had seen the vision, and sought for the meaning, then, behold, there stood before me as the appearance of a man. Daniel 8:15
And I heard a man's voice between the banks of Ulai, which called, and said, Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision. Daniel 8:16
That "man's voice" is Jesus Christ/Michael, telling Gabriel to make Daniel understand.
So he came near where I stood: and when he came, I was afraid, and fell upon my face: but he said unto me, Understand, O son of man: for at the time of the end shall be the vision. Daniel 8:17
Notice, Gabriel specifically says "time of the end", and "vision". This is that time period of 1798-1844.
And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation: for at the time appointed the end shall be. Daniel 8:19
Notice the words "time appointed" and "the end".
In Daniel 9, we see that Gabriel came back years later, to help Daniel come to more understanding of the vision of Daniel 8.
At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to shew thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision. Daniel 9:23
Daniel has no "vision" in Daniel 9, and therefore, Gabriel is refering to that "vision" of Daniel 8, which none "understood".
As Daniel 8 begins with Medo-Persia:
And I saw in a vision; and it came to pass, when I saw, that I was at Shushan in the palace, which is in the province of Elam; and I saw in a vision, and I was by the river of Ulai. Daniel 8:2
Then I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and, behold, there stood before the river a ram which had two horns: and the two horns were high; but one was higher than the other, and the higher came up last. Daniel 8:3
The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia. Daniel 8:20
So, too does Daniel 11, which continues from Daniel 10:
Also I in the first year of Darius the Mede, even I, stood to confirm and to strengthen him. Daniel 11:1
And now will I shew thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all: and by his strength through his riches he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia. Daniel 11:2
Daniel 8 and 11, basically parallel. Daniel 8 is the "vision" with partial explanation, and more is given in Daniel 9 of the same vision. Daniel 10-12, then is a greater explanation of the "vision" of Daniel 8 [which includes Daniel 9], for it too begins with Medo-Persia.
In Daniel 10, Daniel sees Jesus in Vision, and faints, then Gabriel comes touches Daniel, and begins speaking and giving the explanation.
Jesus is seen in both Daniel 8, and Daniel 10 and 12. Daniel 10:14, speaks of those things in regards to the 2,300 days [evening/morngins] of Daniel 8:
Now I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days: for yet the vision is for many days. Daniel 10:14
And, behold, one like the similitude of the sons of men touched my lips: then I opened my mouth, and spake, and said unto him that stood before me, O my lord, by the vision my sorrows are turned upon me, and I have retained no strength. Daniel 10:16
Daniel asks Gabriel to continue speaking about the "vision":
And said, O man greatly beloved, fear not: peace be unto thee, be strong, yea, be strong. And when he had spoken unto me, I was strengthened, and said, Let my lord speak; for thou hast strengthened me. Daniel 10:19
Gabriel then speaks from hereon all the way into Daniel 12:4:
Then said he, Knowest thou wherefore I come unto thee? and now will I return to fight with the prince of Persia: and when I am gone forth, lo, the prince of Grecia shall come. Daniel 10:20
But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince. Daniel 10:21
Gabriel was about to open to Daniel the scripture of truth [iow books of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, etc] which already showed a type of the end events in them! Even Daniel had already been reading Jeremiah [Daniel 9:2]. if one were to actually look at Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and Exodus, etc and the wars in between, one will find the historical type of the endtime anti-type in them! Kings of the North [Babylon] and Kings of the South [Egypt], the surrounding of Jerusalem twice [two seiges], and escaping in between by Jeremiah, just like had been in another type in the days of Jesus, with the Roman armies!
Daniel 11:1 continues Daniel 10 with Gabriel still speaking:
Also I in the first year of Darius the Mede, even I, stood to confirm and to strengthen him. Daniel 11:1
Garbiel was sent from Jesus/Michael to strengthen the King Darius the Mede, from the influence of Satan, as we saw in the previous verses also [Daniel 10:13,20]. We can see this struggle in the backgroun in Isaiah, Ezekiel, Exodus, etc where Satan is attempting to thwart the prophecies of God by interferring with the Kings.
By the time we get to the end of Daniel 11:45, it transitions right into Daniel 12:1, without any break. Gabriel is still speaking up to Daniel 12:4.
When looking at Daniel 12:1, and "at that time", we see that it refers to that which is previously given in Daniel 11. The events from Daniel 11:40{b}-11:45. As pointed out by another, Daniel 12:1 is also linked with Revelation, events specifically Revelation 3:10, but also others, like Revelation 3:20 "door". Why? For Daniel 12:1, is related to Luke 13:25, for Just as Michael stands, intercession ending, so too, in Luke 13:25, the Master of the house is arisen up and shuts to the "door". We may read of this "door", and even "judge" also in James 5:9, and again we may link this with Matthew 25:10, Mark 13:29 and Luke 13:25 in the same events along with Revelation 22:11, etc.
Daniel 12:1 is not a stand alone text, and is not a separate thought from Daniel 11, etc, but is linked in the narrative, in language, in structure, in symbolism, etc to the other portions of Daniel and Revelation and the Gospels.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
As I stated in my earlier posts, Daniel 12 is the culmination of those events given in Daniel 10 & 11, so, yes. But also, as my premise was that William Miller made an error in his hypothesis concerning the "coming of Christ", we need to understand what that error was and WHY it was made. This is the main issue. When this is determined then a clear study can be made due to the fact that what we are being taught today comes from William Miller's hypothesis and that error.
Upvote
0
Leuko Petra
Following The Lamb
Brother William Miller, misunderstood the following verses:
I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. Daniel 7:9
A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened. Daniel 7:10
I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame. Daniel 7:11
As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time. Daniel 7:12
I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. Daniel 7:13
William Miller misunderstood that verse. He had thought that Jesus was coming back to Earth, but that is not what the text says. It says that Jesus was to come "to the Ancient of Days". iow To the Father in the Heavenly!
And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed. Daniel 7:14
Others, also misunderstood the symbolism of the wedding itself. They thought the wedding was to occur when Jesus reuites with His people in the second Advent, but the text says that Jesus was to ascend and receive the Kingdom in Heaven, iow be married there to the Kingdom. later they found this out...
and also:
And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed. Daniel 8:14
William Miller thought that the "sanctuary" was this "earth", and so he concluded that its cleansing was to be by the Fire that comes with Jesus. However, there is no Biblical connection as this. It is a simple mistake. None of his [Miller's] outspoken opponents of the day ever caught this either.
William Miller also misunderstood the following verse in Daniel 11:
And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south: also the robbers of thy people shall exalt themselves to establish the vision; but they shall fall. Daniel 11:14
William Miller [and others after him] thought that the "robbers [breakers, etc] of thy people" meant the Romans, but it does not. This may be discussed further also. He mistakenly introduced the Romans too early in Daniel 11.
It is of course easy to look back with hindsight from our vantage point and say, wow he [or they] made a lot of mistakes. The issue is not the mistakes per se, but rather how much he [or they] did understand, when very few were even on the same level of scriptural study. Brother William Miller [and others] was faithful to the light he had been given from God. God blessed him and even covered the mistakes, as seen in Revelation 10, in the 7 Thunders.
We should be more concerned about the mistakes and blunders we are making today, and where we have great light and are not taking that light as precious light and present truth. We should be studying the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation intently, not destroying the pillars of that which is sure in the Word of God and SoP, but also putting away of those things which were the mistakes of the past, and the pride of yesterday.
Upvote
0
There is no pride here. As a non-Adventist I had questions that were not answered, I found them through Adventism. Now, as and Adventist I have questions. When I have questions I seek them out. "Knock and it will be opened, ask and it shall be given, seek and ye shall find." All my live has been tied up in this subject, the coming of the Lord. I knew from early childhood the Lord would appear during my lifetime, how I know only God can say. However, God has made promises within his word that NO ONE can override, among the is to reveal his timetable in his own due time.
"The wisdom and mercy of God in despensing light and knowledge at the proper time, as the people need, is unsearchable." EGW testimonies for the church Vol. 2 pg 693
Unless you believe that EGW was the final prophet of God, which many do, the we are to continue to look for God's revelations. If Miller, or any of the founders made errors, honest errors, it was due to the fact that God had not yet intended that some things were to be revealed.
"The present truth, which is a test to the people of this generation (EGW's generation), was not a test to the people of generations far back". Ibid Neither is present truth today a test found in our generation a test for those in EGW's time.
"They had the Bible, as we have; but the time for the unfolding of special truth in relation to the closing scenes of this earth's history is during the last generations that live upon the earth." WE are the last of those generations, WE are the ones to receive the "unfolding of specal truth. It is for us to continue seeking "present truth". How are we to do that if we don't ask the hard questions and delve into past mistakes and reevalute want we think we know?
"The wisdom and mercy of God in despensing light and knowledge at the proper time, as the people need, is unsearchable." EGW testimonies for the church Vol. 2 pg 693
Unless you believe that EGW was the final prophet of God, which many do, the we are to continue to look for God's revelations. If Miller, or any of the founders made errors, honest errors, it was due to the fact that God had not yet intended that some things were to be revealed.
"The present truth, which is a test to the people of this generation (EGW's generation), was not a test to the people of generations far back". Ibid Neither is present truth today a test found in our generation a test for those in EGW's time.
"They had the Bible, as we have; but the time for the unfolding of special truth in relation to the closing scenes of this earth's history is during the last generations that live upon the earth." WE are the last of those generations, WE are the ones to receive the "unfolding of specal truth. It is for us to continue seeking "present truth". How are we to do that if we don't ask the hard questions and delve into past mistakes and reevalute want we think we know?
Upvote
0
Leuko Petra
Following The Lamb
"The pride of yesterday" is speaking about the pride of those holding to their specific views, when counselled against, in the past. Iow, Haskell etc on the "paganism" idea and other such things, "time charts" after 1844, setting dates again for 2nd Advent etc. Those things are the "pride of yesterday".
Here is an issue. We cannot know the "time" of the 2nd Advent until the Father reveals it, which comes after the close of probation. Scripture, angels [holy or unclean], men, SoP, Holy Spirit, Jesus do not reveal the "time" of 2nd Advent. no amount of calculations, by any method will reveal it.
While we cannot know the "time", yet [to be revealed after close of probation by the Father], we may know the events in their proper order, exclusive of when precisely they occur.
For instance, we can know the event of the National Sunday Law is coming, but we do not know the exact time for it.
No argument with the messenger of the Lord, and you will not find me ever arguing with it, for I know it is in perfect harmony with the Scripture itself.
Yes, light comes from God, even knowledge and wisdom, etc, and He dispenses those things at the proper time to whom He will. Those times are in His knowledge, not ours.
Ellen G White is the final messenger of the Lord in regards to her function. Typology reveals this to be so. See the Exodus typology. Does God still send visions, dreams and have the gifts still in the church? Yes, without question.
If there is a claim of another to be "prophet", let them be named now, and let their message be tested according to the Law and to the Testimony already borne. If they speak not according to that, there is no light in them whatever.
Present Truth is always the test to the then present generation, of course, again no dissent from this will be found from me, except to say that no future present truth will ever contradict present truth gone before. Again to the Law and to the Testimony.
I agree that this is the last generation, and that this last generation has more light and more present truth, Revelation 14:6-12, amplified in Revelation 18, Daniel 11:40-45, 12:1-4, Revelation 17, etc.
None of these things will ever be found to be out of step with the truth gone before.
For intsance, there are some today making Revelation 17 and the 8th head found therein to be P. Francis, and the previous 7 heads, 7 previous popes before him, which is untenable according to the context, history and previous truths of Daniel and Revelation.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Castaway57
Born Twice
Nothing wrong with questions. Regarding William Miller, is this why you want to "revisit" Daniel 12?
I am just trying to clarify where you are at here, not questioning anything personally in any way. In the four gospels alone, Jesus, in His ministry to others, asked 308 questions, each of them geared to answering questions that the various people He encountered had.
So in summary, just so I know where you are at, are you thinking that Daniel 12 reveals where William Miller went wrong? Is that why you started this topic? If you could summarize for me in just one or two sentences, your main point/thought about Daniel 12 here, that you would like to get across, I would appreciate that.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
