Important Doctrines and Inerrancy: An Axiom

[JohnT]

Having blogged with many SDA bloggers on several sites, not merely CARM, and having mulled this over for quite some time, I have come to this conclusion , and so thoroughly believe its veracity that I propose it as an axiom:

THE LOWER THE DEGREE OF BELIEF IN AN INERRANT AUTOGRAPHA, THE EASIER IT IS TO BE SDA. CONVERSELY, THE HIGHER DEGREE ONE BELIEVES IN AN INERRANT AUTOGRAPHA, THE LESS LIKELY ONE IS TO BE A SDA

For starters, I define terms
inerrancy: it is the belief that the Bible has no error (not even in history or science), ascribed to the original documents

context: the pericope, or the verses surrounding a “proof text”so that one verse talking about one subject can not be logically applied to another, and different belief than which the verse was originally intended.

autographa: the original documents of the Bible, written by Moses, David, Matthew, Paul, etc


Textural transmission the belief that the copyists strove to have 100% accuracy in all that they wrote, and went through extraordinary lengths to maintain the accuracy of the texts as were given to them .

Perspicuity is that there is no one Scripture that when compared to other similar Scriptures, will provide a correction, making an accurate rendition of the intent and scope of the verse, It is also called interlocking proposition. So that God will not say one thing one place, and contradict himself in another place in Scripture.

Primary to the thesis, is the question of the view of Jesus regarding Scripture, As the Second person of the Trinity, he was involved in the creation and transmission of the Scriptures, since Scripture comes frm, and reveals God.

In Matthew 5:17-1 18 Jesus says this: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled”.

Notice that in verse 18, he mentions both the prophets and the law, and in verse 18, he mentions only the law, but adds the phrase till all be fulfilled. This points to prediction, and therefore prophecy. Thus to relegate his meaning to only the Law does not fit into the context of the statement.

But the greatest statement of the view of Jesus regarding Scripture comes in his high Priestly Prayer in John 17. The context was a private audience with his Father, and John, a devoted Disciple records it. In verse 17, He prays that the followers of Jesus be sanctified by the word of God, saying “Sanctify them by thy word, thy word is truth”

It is impossible from these verses to say that Jesus had a low view of Scripture. To him it is inerrant, and those who take a lower view of Scripture than Jesus, are actually calling Him a liar.

In defining inerrancy, Moody Handbook on Theology says

It [inerrancy] does not demand rigidity of style and verbatim quotations from the Old Testament. “The inerrancy of the Bible means simply that the Bible tells the truth. Truth can and does include approximations, free quotations, language of appearances, and different accounts of the same event as long as those do not contradict.”

Thus there is latitude, but not license. We are not free to “cherry pick” Scriptures, and we can check other Biblical resources for accuracy sake.

But why is the issue of inerrancy, especially as it pertains to my axiom? It is simple. No adequate theology is possible without a belief in inerrancy. It is the Bible alone to which we must go to determine “Thus saith the Lord”. Who are we to say, “He means it here, but not there?”

That is not to say that we can say “This has changed because of that.” because in doing so, we compare Scripture with Scripture, in context to determine what a doctrine says.

Now back to the axiom. It is impossible to use the concept of inerrancy and support any of the controversial doctrines of EGW such as 1844, IJ, shut Door, etc. (OK, Report me for that one!)

For example the doctrine of 1844 lies upon a total misunderstanding of Daniel 8:14.

First it ignores the verse before it, 13. That is critical because verse 14 is the answer to the question that Daniel asks in that verse as to the length of the Abomination, or the desecration of the Holy of Holies.

Second it totally ignores the linguistics in the original text. The Hebrew actually says, “evenings and mornings” That phrase actually refers to the morning and evening sacrifice offered at the Temple. Using latitude, one could stretch that phrase to mean “days” but anything else, such as years is not founded in Scripture.

Third, using context again, in verse 26, the same exact phrase is used, and it is translated in the KJV and other Bibles (not paraphrases) as “evenings and mornings”.

Since that is the case, those supporting the 1844 doctrine must find OTHER Scripture to support that, other than Daniel 8:14. I am not debating the truth of that belief here, other than to say that the verses cited to support it, when taken from the inerrant stance simply do not support the belief. That is why to be a TSDA, it is necessary to hold a lower view of the inerrancy of Scripture because it requires the beliefs of EGW to be higher than what Scripture says, by definition and application.

 

[JonMiller]

I don't really care about a lot of the minutia (unless it comes out that the scriptures have massive changes made to them at some point in the past), but I don't see how people can claim that the Bible is inerrant. The Bible exists on earth, and was written by humans, even though it is the Holy word of God, it isn't the Holy Word of God which is perfect in all things (That is Christ).

Note that this doesn't mean that it shouldn't be used for instruciton or leaning or guidance, just that one shouldn't expect it to be perfect.

Which we shouldn't expect of anything with human involvement.

Jon Miller

 

[mva1985]

I don't really care about a lot of the minutia (unless it comes out that the scriptures have massive changes made to them at some point in the past), but I don't see how people can claim that the Bible is inerrant. The Bible exists on earth, and was written by humans, even though it is the Holy word of God, it isn't the Holy Word of God which is perfect in all things (That is Christ).

Note that this doesn't mean that it shouldn't be used for instruciton or leaning or guidance, just that one shouldn't expect it to be perfect.

Which we shouldn't expect of anything with human involvement.

Jon Miller

How do you decide what to pick and choose?

 

[OntheDL]

Having blogged with many SDA bloggers on several sites, not merely CARM, and having mulled this over for quite some time, I have come to this conclusion , and so thoroughly believe its veracity that I propose it as an axiom:

THE LOWER THE DEGREE OF BELIEF IN AN INERRANT AUTOGRAPHA, THE EASIER IT IS TO BE SDA. CONVERSELY, THE HIGHER DEGREE ONE BELIEVES IN AN INERRANT AUTOGRAPHA, THE LESS LIKELY ONE IS TO BE A SDA

For starters, I define terms
inerrancy: it is the belief that the Bible has no error (not even in history or science), ascribed to the original documents

context: the pericope, or the verses surrounding a “proof text”so that one verse talking about one subject can not be logically applied to another, and different belief than which the verse was originally intended.

autographa: the original documents of the Bible, written by Moses, David, Matthew, Paul, etc


Textural transmission the belief that the copyists strove to have 100% accuracy in all that they wrote, and went through extraordinary lengths to maintain the accuracy of the texts as were given to them .

Perspicuity is that there is no one Scripture that when compared to other similar Scriptures, will provide a correction, making an accurate rendition of the intent and scope of the verse, It is also called interlocking proposition. So that God will not say one thing one place, and contradict himself in another place in Scripture.

Primary to the thesis, is the question of the view of Jesus regarding Scripture, As the Second person of the Trinity, he was involved in the creation and transmission of the Scriptures, since Scripture comes frm, and reveals God.

In Matthew 5:17-1 18 Jesus says this: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled”.

Notice that in verse 18, he mentions both the prophets and the law, and in verse 18, he mentions only the law, but adds the phrase till all be fulfilled. This points to prediction, and therefore prophecy. Thus to relegate his meaning to only the Law does not fit into the context of the statement.

But the greatest statement of the view of Jesus regarding Scripture comes in his high Priestly Prayer in John 17. The context was a private audience with his Father, and John, a devoted Disciple records it. In verse 17, He prays that the followers of Jesus be sanctified by the word of God, saying “Sanctify them by thy word, thy word is truth”

It is impossible from these verses to say that Jesus had a low view of Scripture. To him it is inerrant, and those who take a lower view of Scripture than Jesus, are actually calling Him a liar.

In defining inerrancy, Moody Handbook on Theology says
Thus there is latitude, but not license. We are not free to “cherry pick” Scriptures, and we can check other Biblical resources for accuracy sake.

But why is the issue of inerrancy, especially as it pertains to my axiom? It is simple. No adequate theology is possible without a belief in inerrancy. It is the Bible alone to which we must go to determine “Thus saith the Lord”. Who are we to say, “He means it here, but not there?”

That is not to say that we can say “This has changed because of that.” because in doing so, we compare Scripture with Scripture, in context to determine what a doctrine says.

Now back to the axiom. It is impossible to use the concept of inerrancy and support any of the controversial doctrines of EGW such as 1844, IJ, shut Door, etc. (OK, Report me for that one!)

For example the doctrine of 1844 lies upon a total misunderstanding of Daniel 8:14.

Since that is the case, those supporting the 1844 doctrine must find OTHER Scripture to support that, other than Daniel 8:14. I am not debating the truth of that belief here, other than to say that the verses cited to support it, when taken from the inerrant stance simply do not support the belief. That is why to be a TSDA, it is necessary to hold a lower view of the inerrancy of Scripture because it requires the beliefs of EGW to be higher than what Scripture says, by definition and application.

Do you have a quote from Ellen White or any of the pioneers that expressed an idea explicitly opposing the biblical inerrancy? If such a statement exists, I'd like to see it.

For the specific examples you gave about the Adventist's doctrine, I must say you need to do more homework.

You can not from the view of a critic seeking to disprove our 1844 doctrine using supposed textual issues to argue against it. Our Investigative Judgment simply wasn't built upon the one verse of Daniel 8:14.

For that reason, I never feel compelled to defend it. It takes a person who understands the scope of our sanctuary doctrine which is found in the opening pages of Genesis through the closing scenes of Revelation to seriously examine the IJ doctrine. From arguments that I have seen... since Dudley Canright's challenge, to everyone else repeating his points afterwards, no one has done that.

However since you made 3 specific arguments, I'll give you the answers on them.

First it ignores the verse before it, 13. That is critical because verse 14 is the answer to the question that Daniel asks in that verse as to the length of the Abomination, or the desecration of the Holy of Holies.

The vision of the Daniel 8 was really a continuation of the larger vision Daniel began to receive in Daniel 7 in 553BC and ended in Daniel 9 in 539BC.

Daniel 7 and Daniel 8 gave the context of the prophecy: the successive kingdoms to come (Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Pagan Rome and Papal Rome). Notice Daniel 7 & 8 were basically about the same powers which also paralleled the vision in Daniel 2. This is Hebrew parallelism. Daniel 8:14 gave the end date of the prophecy. This is why the vision continued as Daniel could not understand it until the starting date was given in Daniel 9:24.

Second it totally ignores the linguistics in the original text. The Hebrew actually says, “evenings and mornings” That phrase actually refers to the morning and evening sacrifice offered at the Temple. Using latitude, one could stretch that phrase to mean “days” but anything else, such as years is not founded in Scripture.

Actually the word days in Daniel 8:14 is "ereb boqer", evening morning. "ereb wayhiy boqer yowm echaad" ...the evening and the morning were the first day. This was the biblical definition of the day from Genesis1:5. Not a stretch at all.

Furthermore, in Daniel 8:13 the English word sacrifice is in Italic, meaning it was not in the original text and was added by the translators. The Hebrew word here is "hataamiyd", meaning daily. The Hebrew word sacrifice is not found in Daniel 8:13.

Ok, lets suppose you are correct, that's 2300 morning and evening sacrifices. Since God instructed the Israelites to perform 1 morning and 1 evening sacrifice per day, then that's 1150 days.

If you accept the day for a year principle, that's 1150 years. You will arrive at 694 AD.

If you do not accept the day for a year principle, that would make it fall on 163BC when Antiochus Epiphanes desecrated the temple.

Well neither interpretation is correct since the vision was told explicitly was "for the time of the end shall be the vision", Daniel 8:17.

Neither 163BC and 694AD would qualify for the time of the end, correct?

Third, using context again, in verse 26, the same exact phrase is used, and it is translated in the KJV and other Bibles (not paraphrases) as “evenings and mornings”.

Again this does not help your case, as Genesis 1:5 has shown you "evening and morning" was the biblical definition of the day.

You have charged Traditional SDAs of holding a lower opinion of bible inerrancy. Through my study of Adventism, I have yet to find that to be true. Itn my opinion, it's the exact opposite.

From the three examples you have given, I did not find a solid argument to suggest the fact.

Now by your logic, perhaps you should examine your own believes. Have the scriptures shown here discounted what you want to believe?

 

[JonMiller]

How do you decide what to pick and choose?

I don't pick and choose... I try to consider what they are saying, whether or not they are factually accurate.

Also, as far as what interpretation is true... we are told to study in prayer and meditation and worship for a reason.

JM

 

[JohnT]

Do you have a quote from Ellen White or any of the pioneers that expressed an idea explicitly opposing the biblical inerrancy? If such a statement exists, I'd like to see it.

Never mentioned it in the post. Red herring argumentation

For the specific examples you gave about the Adventist's doctrine, I must say you need to do more homework.

You can not from the view of a critic seeking to disprove our 1844 doctrine using supposed textual issues to argue against it. Our Investigative Judgment simply wasn't built upon the one verse of Daniel 8:14.

Disproving it was not the thrust of the thesis. I merely assert that Daniel 8:14 can not support 1844 as one example of the SDA position not supporting inerrancy.

For that reason, I never feel compelled to defend it. It takes a person who understands the scope of our sanctuary doctrine which is found in the opening pages of Genesis through the closing scenes of Revelation to seriously examine the IJ doctrine. From arguments that I have seen... since Dudley Canright's challenge, to everyone else repeating his points afterwards, no one has done that.

Again, Canright was not part of the thesis. I also defined inerrancy in the post. Use that.

However since you made 3 specific arguments, I'll give you the answers on them.
The vision of the Daniel 8 was really a continuation of the larger vision Daniel began to receive in Daniel 7 in 553BC and ended in Daniel 9 in 539BC.

That does not square with the facts:
Chapter 7 is written in Chaldean, but chapter 8 is in Hebrew. Two separate languages, two separate occasions.

Chapter 7 begins in the first year of King Beltshazzar's reign, Chapter 8 begins in the THIRD year of King Beltshazzar's reign TWO SEPARATE OCCASIONS.

Daniel 7 and Daniel 8 gave the context of the prophecy: the successive kingdoms to come (Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Pagan Rome and Papal Rome). Notice Daniel 7 & 8 were basically about the same powers which also paralleled the vision in Daniel 2. This is Hebrew parallelism. Daniel 8:14 gave the end date of the prophecy. This is why the vision continued as Daniel could not understand it until the starting date was given in Daniel 9:24.

Correct, Chapter 7 parallels Chapter 2.
Your distinction between between pagan Rome and Papal Rome does not square with history.. I have not found that distinction in any of the non-SDA books I read on the subject. Nor is chiasmus. Hebrew potrey contrivances are for Hebrew poetry.

This is two different languages, two different incidents and two separate times.

Actually the word days in Daniel 8:14 is "ereb boqer", evening morning. "ereb wayhiy boqer yowm echaad" ...the evening and the morning were the first day. This was the biblical definition of the day from Genesis1:5. Not a stretch at all.

In the post I granted that it is within the liberty of language to use the word "day" to translate the three Hebrew words. However the context of 13 & 14, however, the CONTEXT of both is a question and answer of both to indicate the length of time of the fulfillment.

Furthermore, in Daniel 8:13 the English word sacrifice is in Italic, meaning it was not in the original text and was added by the translators. The Hebrew word here is "hataamiyd", meaning daily. The Hebrew word sacrifice is not found in Daniel 8:13.

Yes, the translators inserted the word "sacrifice" to clear things up

Ok, lets suppose you are correct, that's 2300 morning and evening sacrifices. Since God instructed the Israelites to perform 1 morning and 1 evening sacrifice per day, then that's 1150 days.

NO!! Your math is incorrect. That is 2300 morning sacrifices, and 2300 morning sacrifices. Two per day for 2300 days

If you accept the day for a year principle, that's 1150 years. You will arrive at 694 AD.

If you do not accept the day for a year principle, that would make it fall on 163BC when Antiochus Epiphanes desecrated the temple.

I do not. for there is ABSOLUTELY NO SUCH THING in Scripture.

You can find a certain phrase about days and years in Scripture, BUT THAT IS ENTIRELY OUT OF CONTEXT. That further shows how you guys wish to contort Scripture. It is a cherry picked phrase, having nothing to do with prophecy-- a distortion.

Well neither interpretation is correct since the vision was told explicitly was "for the time of the end shall be the vision", Daniel 8:17.

You used faulty math to come up with the answer, so of course, it is wrong

Neither 163BC and 694AD would qualify for the time of the end, correct?

Again this does not help your case, as Genesis 1:5 has shown you "evening and morning" was the biblical definition of the day.

My original post stated that "day" was a reasonable interpertation. Where is the problem?

You have charged Traditional SDAs of holding a lower opinion of bible inerrancy. Through my study of Adventism, I have yet to find that to be true. Itn my opinion, it's the exact opposite.

From the three examples you have given, I did not find a solid argument to suggest the fact.

The hoops and hurdles that you just went through, all contrary to Scripture to justify your position are ample proof of my contention.

In your effort to prove me wrong, you actually demonstrated how you deconstruct Scripture.

Now by your logic, perhaps you should examine your own believes. Have the scriptures shown here discounted what you want to believe?

Sorry, but it is just the opposite.

My purpose was not to debate 1844. I used that as an example. I challenge you to find one time in the Hebrew Bible where the phrase "evening and morning" is ever translated as "year". You can not. I searched it out using my tools. One word is used about 106 times in the OT and the other is used about 187 if memory serves me correctly. But the fact of the matter is that in all the times where they are both in the same verse, they are always translated as evening and morning, or vice versa.

Had you not come in with that Millerite tripe that EGW and her family believed, and had them disciplined and removed from the Methodist church, you could see how great your convolutions are.

Your position is to insist that the phrase "morning and evening" actually mean year. That means that Daniel really messed up when as one of the most learned and wise men of the civilized world burped when he wrote that.

Your position is that Holy Spirit could not prevent Daniel from making an egregious mistake--according to SDA theology. By definition, that is holding a lower view of Scripture.

Now do you see how you prove my axiom? Seriously, it is almost a knee jerk reaction.

Look at how you ignored the CONTEXT and the plain simple meaning of the language. You try to build on a flimsy foundation when you ignore those two, and you use poor math to support it.

 

[Loveaboveall]

Primary to the thesis, is the question of the view of Jesus regarding Scripture, As the Second person of the Trinity, he was involved in the creation and transmission of the Scriptures, since Scripture comes frm, and reveals God.

In Matthew 5:17-1 18 Jesus says this: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled”.

Notice that in verse 18, he mentions both the prophets and the law, and in verse 18, he mentions only the law, but adds the phrase till all be fulfilled. This points to prediction, and therefore prophecy. Thus to relegate his meaning to only the Law does not fit into the context of the statement.

But the greatest statement of the view of Jesus regarding Scripture comes in his high Priestly Prayer in John 17. The context was a private audience with his Father, and John, a devoted Disciple records it. In verse 17, He prays that the followers of Jesus be sanctified by the word of God, saying “Sanctify them by thy word, thy word is truth”

It is impossible from these verses to say that Jesus had a low view of Scripture. To him it is inerrant, and those who take a lower view of Scripture than Jesus, are actually calling Him a liar.

Speaking of context... Can you explain to me why any person looking to demonstrate with Jesus' words that the 10 commandments are no longer a standard we should obey do not EVER quote vs. 19?

Matt 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Matt 5:17-18 in context with vs 19 all the way to the end of the chapter suggests that Jesus never intended to intimate the idea that there would be a day when the 10 commandments would be abolished! Furthermore, vs 19 is a solemn warning to those who either do not keep them or teach others to not keep them.

 

[JohnT]

Speaking of context... Can you explain to me why any person looking to demonstrate with Jesus' words that the 10 commandments are no longer a standard we should obey do not EVER quote vs. 19?

Why don't you start your own thread on that subject?

 

[OntheDL]

First of all, do not be antagonistic. If you have a valid point, make it. The conclusion will take care of itself. Even if you are correct, by your attitude, you will not reach anyone.

Never mentioned it in the post. Red herring argumentation

Well I'm sure if such a quote exists, you would not hesitate to use it for your case, right?

The fact is that, contrary to your charge, Adventists believe in the inspiration of the Word of God and that God preserved the Word down through the ages. And the bible does not come under the scrutiny of history and science. The history and science are irrelevant to the credibility of the Word of God.

Disproving it was not the thrust of the thesis. I merely assert that Daniel 8:14 can not support 1844 as one example of the SDA position not supporting inerrancy.

Let me tell you again: our Investigative Judgment doctrine is not solely built on Daniel 8:14.

You may wish to interprete Daniel 8:14 anyway you like to. It does not prove or disprove our IJ message by itself.

Again, Canright was not part of the thesis. I also defined inerrancy in the post. Use that.

I have not seen any new arguments from you. So far, everyone has merely regurgitated from Canright's book(s).

And if you think you are trying to bring 'light' to SDAs, do not try to label them. That made you sound condescending and presumptuous.

That does not square with the facts:
Chapter 7 is written in Chaldean, but chapter 8 is in Hebrew. Two separate languages, two separate occasions.

What does the speculation of Daniel 2-7 was written in Aramaic have to do with anything?

Chapter 7 begins in the first year of King Beltshazzar's reign, Chapter 8 begins in the THIRD year of King Beltshazzar's reign TWO SEPARATE OCCASIONS.

Yeah, two different times. But about the same thing as Daniel 2 & 7 were visions about similar successive kingdoms.

Correct, Chapter 7 parallels Chapter 2.
Your distinction between between pagan Rome and Papal Rome does not square with history.. I have not found that distinction in any of the non-SDA books I read on the subject. Nor is chiasmus. Hebrew potrey contrivances are for Hebrew poetry.

Does not square with history? There are just 3 of many non-SDA quotes.

"The removal of the capital of the Empire from Rome to Constantinople in 330, left the Western Church, practically free from imperial power, to develop its own form of organization. The Bishop of Rome, in the seat of the Caesars, was now the greatest man in the West, and was soon [when the barbarians over-ran the empire] forced to become the political as well as the spiritual head."--Alexander Flick, The Rise of the Medieval Church p. 168

"The popes filled the place of the vacant emperors at Rome, inheriting their power, their prestige, and their titles from Paganism. Constantine left all to the Bishop of Rome. The Papacy is but the ghost of the disguise Roman empires setting crowned upon its grave." ---Stanley's History, p40

"The power of the Papacy became supreme in Christendom in 538 B.C. due to the letter of Roman Emperor Justinian, which acknowledged the bishop of Rome as the head of all churches. This letter became a part of Justinian's code, the fundamental law of the empire, and in that year, Pope Vigalist ascended to the Papal chair under the military protection of the Belasarius."---History of the Christian Church, Vol 3, p 327.

This is two different languages,

speculation.

two different incidents and two separate times.

yes and yes. But about the same subject.

In the post I granted that it is within the liberty of language to use the word "day" to translate the three Hebrew words. However the context of 13 & 14, however, the CONTEXT of both is a question and answer of both to indicate the length of time of the fulfillment.

Daniel 8:14 not only answers vs 13, it also gives the end point of the prophecy.

It's not only time in the bible an answer was given to the original question, but also provides a larger view.

Yes, the translators inserted the word "sacrifice" to clear things up

Therefore you can not use the word sacrifice to prove your point since it does not exist in the original text.

The daily (tamid) means so much more than just sacrifice.

And none of the daily took place in the Holy of Holies as you indicated in your first post. The daily (tamid) took place in the court and in the holy place, not in the Most Holy Place. The Most Holy Place was only entered by the High Priest once a year on the Day of Atonement which was the shadow.

NO!! Your math is incorrect. That is 2300 morning sacrifices, and 2300 morning sacrifices. Two per day for 2300 days

Oh ok, for 2300 days? So you agree it's 2300 days?

I do not. for there is ABSOLUTELY NO SUCH THING in Scripture.

You can find a certain phrase about days and years in Scripture, BUT THAT IS ENTIRELY OUT OF CONTEXT. That further shows how you guys wish to contort Scripture. It is a cherry picked phrase, having nothing to do with prophecy-- a distortion.

You used faulty math to come up with the answer, so of course, it is wrong

Faulty math? Look up the preterist interpretation. That's the day they arrive at, not me. I only gave you the possible calculations derived from your logic. And they do look ridiculous.

My original post stated that "day" was a reasonable interpertation. Where is the problem?

A prophetic day is a literal year. That's not a SDA principle. The reformers started using it. It (day for a year) is found in the bilbe.

The hoops and hurdles that you just went through, all contrary to Scripture to justify your position are ample proof of my contention.

In your effort to prove me wrong, you actually demonstrated how you deconstruct Scripture.

By repeating the same thing does not make it so. You have not shown any clear scriptures that prove our position contradicts the bible.

Sorry, but it is just the opposite.

My purpose was not to debate 1844. I used that as an example. I challenge you to find one time in the Hebrew Bible where the phrase "evening and morning" is ever translated as "year". You can not. I searched it out using my tools. One word is used about 106 times in the OT and the other is used about 187 if memory serves me correctly. But the fact of the matter is that in all the times where they are both in the same verse, they are always translated as evening and morning, or vice versa.

You are correct. We don't say evening and morning equals to a year. Evening and morning is defined as a day by Genesis 1:5. A prophetic day equals a literal year. Understand what we teach.

Had you not come in with that Millerite tripe that EGW and her family believed, and had them disciplined and removed from the Methodist church, you could see how great your convolutions are.

Insults do not make you more credible. If detracts from your points.

Convoluted? No. Complex? Yes. Because it spans the whole bible. It takes dedicated study and the leading of the holy spirit to comprehend it.

Your position is to insist that the phrase "morning and evening" actually mean year. That means that Daniel really messed up when as one of the most learned and wise men of the civilized world burped when he wrote that.

Your position is that Holy Spirit could not prevent Daniel from making an egregious mistake--according to SDA theology. By definition, that is holding a lower view of Scripture.

Now do you see how you prove my axiom? Seriously, it is almost a knee jerk reaction.

Look at how you ignored the CONTEXT and the plain simple meaning of the language. You try to build on a flimsy foundation when you ignore those two, and you use poor math to support it.

You misunderstood our teachings. We never say evening and morning is a year. Either that is a strawman or it's misguided understanding. Get it right please.

 

[JohnT]

First of all, do not be antagonistic. If you have a valid point, make it. The conclusion will take care of itself. Even if you are correct, by your attitude, you will not reach anyone.

Sorry, but I was not trying to be antagonistic. I thought that the post was neutral, expressing a few facts, and logical conclusions

Well I'm sure if such a quote exists, you would not hesitate to use it for your case, right?

Who is being antagonistic, now?

The fact is that, contrary to your charge, Adventists believe in the inspiration of the Word of God and that God preserved the Word down through the ages. And the bible does not come under the scrutiny of history and science. The history and science are irrelevant to the credibility of the Word of God.

You change my words. The word is not "inspiration" instead it is "inerrancy"that is under discussion. In Fundamental Belief 1, the official position is that the Bible reveals "the inerrant WILL of God" (emphasis added). That is s severe restriction.

So while you do not intentionally deceive, you do not represent the official position correctly. I attribute no malice to that.

Let me tell you again: our Investigative Judgment doctrine is not solely built on Daniel 8:14.

You may wish to interprete Daniel 8:14 anyway you like to. It does not prove or disprove our IJ message by itself.

My position remains that NOTHING in Daniel 8:13-14 supports IJ or 1844

I have not seen any new arguments from you. So far, everyone has merely regurgitated from Canright's book(s).

No, my objection comes from exegesis, not Canright, whoever he/she may be.

And if you think you are trying to bring 'light' to SDAs, do not try to label them. That made you sound condescending and presumptuous.

No, that is your interpretation, not my intent. And if something does not fit together, is it wrong to let other people maintain a delusion? If it does not fit Scripturally, then it does not fit Scripturally.

What is wrong with explaining the truth? When is truth "condescending"?

What does the speculation of Daniel 2-7 was written in Aramaic have to do with anything?

It is not speculation. it is a matter of record, check it out yourself.

Yeah, two different times. But about the same thing as Daniel 2 & 7 were visions about similar successive kingdoms.

I wrote that in response to your statement seemingly sataing that Daniwl was in a vision for 26 years " The vision of the Daniel 8 was really a continuation of the larger vision Daniel began to receive in Daniel 7 in 553BC and ended in Daniel 9 in 539BC."

Does not square with history? There are just 3 of many non-SDA quotes.

"The removal of the capital of the Empire from Rome to Constantinople in 330, left the Western Church, practically free from imperial power, to develop its own form of organization. The Bishop of Rome, in the seat of the Caesars, was now the greatest man in the West, and was soon [when the barbarians over-ran the empire] forced to become the political as well as the spiritual head."--Alexander Flick, The Rise of the Medieval Church p. 168

"The popes filled the place of the vacant emperors at Rome, inheriting their power, their prestige, and their titles from Paganism. Constantine left all to the Bishop of Rome. The Papacy is but the ghost of the disguise Roman empires setting crowned upon its grave." ---Stanley's History, p40

"The power of the Papacy became supreme in Christendom in 538 B.C. due to the letter of Roman Emperor Justinian, which acknowledged the bishop of Rome as the head of all churches. This letter became a part of Justinian's code, the fundamental law of the empire, and in that year, Pope Vigalist ascended to the Papal chair under the military protection of the Belasarius."---History of the Christian Church, Vol 3, p 327.

I remember reading this quote as I was researching Fick. Did they copy one another? "The Papacy is but the ghost of the disguise Roman empires setting crowned upon its grave."

However, none of your quotes make the distinction that you did between Papal Rome and Pagan Rome. That is the reason I wrote that. In all the history I studied, none of the courses or books make the distinction that you did.

speculation.

No a matter of record. You should study more before you pontificate erroneously. Someone may accuse you of being condescending.

yes and yes. But about the same subject.

for the latter part to be true, you need to supply proof. All we have is your word saying so, OTOH, I know the source documents.

Therefore you can not use the word sacrifice to prove your point since it does not exist in the original text

.
By what rule of translation do assert that? That is a perfectly acceptable way to translate, adding the referring data of the answer in it to translate into another language to make sense in the new language.

And none of the daily took place in the Holy of Holies as you indicated in your first post. The daily (tamid) took place in the court and in the holy place, not in the Most Holy Place. The Most Holy Place was only entered by the High Priest once a year on the Day of Atonement which was the shadow.

When did I ever say such nonsense about a daily sacrifice in the Holy of Holies? Only someone not familiar with Temple worship could make such a gross mistake. You are making things up

Oh ok, for 2300 days? So you agree it's 2300 days?

Faulty math? Look up the preterist interpretation. That's the day they arrive at, not me. I only gave you the possible calculations derived from your logic. And they do look ridiculous.

Who ever mentioned "preterist interpretation" I surely did not. Again, you are making things up.

A prophetic day is a literal year. That's not a SDA principle. The reformers started using it. It (day for a year) is found in the bilbe.

That is hogwash! There is no such hermeneutical principle as making day=year, for in doing si, you destroy the intent and plain sense of the words, turning Scripture into a willy nilly conglomeration of non related, nonsensical verses. That is precisely where the SDAs violate the belief in inerrancy of Scripture. You guys try to change the words into your own meaning, and in the process, you create a Bible after your own liking. That destroys Scripture, and a destroyed Scripture i s not inerrant.

Can you not see that?

By repeating the same thing does not make it so. You have not shown any clear scriptures that prove our position contradicts the bible.

I proved that your position is not supported by the Scriptures you cite.

You are correct. We don't say evening and morning equals to a year. Evening and morning is defined as a day by Genesis 1:5. A prophetic day equals a literal year. Understand what we teach

.

Is that a contradiction? First you say year=day, then you deny it

Insults do not make you more credible. If detracts from your points.

Where is the insult? FYI a knee jerk reaction is another word for reflex. You know when the MD whacks the knee and elbow to see how well your autonomic reflexes are. Knee jerk describes the type of reaction; it no way indicates that I am calling you a jerk. Gimme a break!

Convoluted? No. Complex? Yes. Because it spans the whole bible. It takes dedicated study and the leading of the holy spirit to comprehend it.


You misunderstood our teachings. We never say evening and morning is a year. Either that is a strawman or it's misguided understanding. Get it right please.

Yeah, set me straight. You say to say that
1) Evening and morning do not =year
2) Evening and morning do =day
3) But that day=year, or vice versa as it relates to prophecy

Nevertheless, in the last two posts, you have consistently tried to essentially say, "That is not what is meant in Scripture..." So if I ask, if that is NOT what God wanted there, how did it get there in the first place?

Doesn't that make for a sloppy God who can not keep his own Book from error?

If you answer that in the affirmative, then you have a sloppy God with a sloppy, error-fulled Scripture. If that is your position, then you also deny inerrancy, by definition

 

[JohnT]

I thought that this would be an interesting read.

[FONT=&quot]86 Jerome's Commentary on Daniel[/FONT]
​

[FONT=&quot].[/FONT]
Verse 13. "And I heard one of the saints speaking and one saint said to another saint (I do not know which on who was conversing with him." Instead of "another one whiff one I do not know" - the rendering of Symmachus (p. 537) (tini pote) which I too have followed - Aquila and (675) Thodotion, and the Septuagint as well, have simply put the Heb word (p-l-m-n-y) phelmoni (B) itself. Without specifying angel's name, I should say that the author indicated some of the angels or other in a general way.
"'How long shall be the vision concerning t continual sacrifice and the sin of the desolation that is made, a the sanctuary and the strength be trodden under foot?"' angel asks another angel for how long a period the Temple by the judgment of God to be desolated under the rule of An chus, King of Syria, and how long the image of Jupiter is to s in God's Temple (according to his additional statement: ". and the sanctuary and the strength be trodden under foot?")

Verse 14. And he answered him, "'Until the evening and the morning, until two thousand three hundred days and then the sanctuary shall be cleansed."' If we read the Book of Maccabees and the history of Josephus, we shall find it th recorded that in the one hundred and forty-third year after Seleucus who first reigned in Syria after the decease of Alexan Antiochus entered Jerusalem, and after wreaking a general devastation he returned again in the third year and set up the statue of Jupiter in the Temple.



Up until the time of Judas Maccabaeus, that is, up until the one hundred and eighth year, Jerusalem lay waste over a period of six years, and for three [of those years the Temple lay defiled; making up a total of two thousand three hundred days plus three months. [At least that is what text seems to say, following the present word-order.

Actually three months should be added to the six years in order to out to a total of approximately 2300 days.] At the end of the period the Temple was purged. Some authorities read two hun[wash my mouth]dred instead of two thousand three hundred, in order to avoid the apparent excess involved in six years and three months. [Actually, however, 2200 days would come out to only six years and nine days; the reasoning here seems obscure.]


Most of our commentators refer this passage to the Antichrist, and hold that that which occurred under Antiochus was only by way of a type which shall be fulfilled under Antichrist. And as for the state[wash my mouth]ment, "The sanctuary shall be cleansed," this refers to the time of Judas Maccabaeus, who came from the village of Modin, and who being aided by the efforts of his brothers (D) and relatives and many of the Jewish people [defeated?] [the verb is left out] the generals of Antiochus not far above Emmaus (which is now called Nicopolis). And hearing of this, Antiochus, who had risen up against the Prince of princes, that is, against the Lord of lords and King of kings, was earnestly desirous of despoiling the temple of Diana which was located in Elimais, in the Persian district, because it possessed valuable votive offerings. And when he there lost his army, he was destroyed without hands, that is to say, he died of grief. As for the mention of evening and morning [in that fourteenth verse], this signifies the succession of day and night.
Verse 15. "And it came to pass that when I, Daniel, had seen the vision, I sought to understand it." He be[wash my mouth]held the vision by way of a picture or likeness, and he failed to understand it. Consequently, not everyone who sees comprehends what he has seen; it is just as if we read the Holy Scripture with our eyes and do not understand it with our heart. (p. 538)
"...And behold, one stood before me who re[wash my mouth]sembled the appearance of a man." Angels, after all, are not actually men by nature, but they resemble men in appearance. For example, three persons appeared as men to Abraham at the oak of Mamre (Gen. 18), and yet they certainly were not men, for one of them was worshipped as the Lord. And so the Savior also stated in the Gospel: "Abraham beheld My day; he beheld it and rejoiced" (John 8:56).


Migne Footnotes


B The Vatican MSS, in agreement with the Sangermane MS, as quoted by Montfaucon, reads phelmoni in Roman letters [instead of the Greek letters of the text]. Other printed editions read pelmoni or pelimoni (in Roman letters).

C Victorinus says that the word "days" is not contained in the Hebrew original nor in the Brescian codices, but it was probably inserted from Theodotion or else inserted here from the margin as a word to be understood.

[FONT=&quot]D Two manuscripts and the earlier printed editions have "sons" instead of "brothers." Victorinus long ago corrected this to the true reading, with the aid of the Florentine codices, and under the influence of the actual account in I Maccabees, chap. 2, verse 8. The brothers of Judas Maccabaeus were Simon, Joseph, and Jonathan. Compare also Josephus, Anti[wash my mouth]quities, X, 9.

(original translation by Gleason L Archer Baker Book House c. 1958)
[/FONT]

 

[Loveaboveall]

I thought that this would be an interesting read.

[FONT=&quot]86 Jerome's Commentary on Daniel[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot].[/FONT]
Verse 13. "And I heard one of the saints speaking and one saint said to another saint (I do not know which on who was conversing with him." Instead of "another one whiff one I do not know" - the rendering of Symmachus (p. 537) (tini pote) which I too have followed - Aquila and (675) Thodotion, and the Septuagint as well, have simply put the Heb word (p-l-m-n-y) phelmoni (B) itself. Without specifying angel's name, I should say that the author indicated some of the angels or other in a general way.
"'How long shall be the vision concerning t continual sacrifice and the sin of the desolation that is made, a the sanctuary and the strength be trodden under foot?"' angel asks another angel for how long a period the Temple by the judgment of God to be desolated under the rule of An chus, King of Syria, and how long the image of Jupiter is to s in God's Temple (according to his additional statement: ". and the sanctuary and the strength be trodden under foot?")

Verse 14. And he answered him, "'Until the evening and the morning, until two thousand three hundred days and then the sanctuary shall be cleansed."' If we read the Book of Maccabees and the history of Josephus, we shall find it th recorded that in the one hundred and forty-third year after Seleucus who first reigned in Syria after the decease of Alexan Antiochus entered Jerusalem, and after wreaking a general devastation he returned again in the third year and set up the statue of Jupiter in the Temple.



Up until the time of Judas Maccabaeus, that is, up until the one hundred and eighth year, Jerusalem lay waste over a period of six years, and for three [of those years the Temple lay defiled; making up a total of two thousand three hundred days plus three months. [At least that is what text seems to say, following the present word-order.

Actually three months should be added to the six years in order to out to a total of approximately 2300 days.] At the end of the period the Temple was purged. Some authorities read two hun[wash my mouth]dred instead of two thousand three hundred, in order to avoid the apparent excess involved in six years and three months. [Actually, however, 2200 days would come out to only six years and nine days; the reasoning here seems obscure.]


Most of our commentators refer this passage to the Antichrist, and hold that that which occurred under Antiochus was only by way of a type which shall be fulfilled under Antichrist. And as for the state[wash my mouth]ment, "The sanctuary shall be cleansed," this refers to the time of Judas Maccabaeus, who came from the village of Modin, and who being aided by the efforts of his brothers (D) and relatives and many of the Jewish people [defeated?] [the verb is left out] the generals of Antiochus not far above Emmaus (which is now called Nicopolis). And hearing of this, Antiochus, who had risen up against the Prince of princes, that is, against the Lord of lords and King of kings, was earnestly desirous of despoiling the temple of Diana which was located in Elimais, in the Persian district, because it possessed valuable votive offerings. And when he there lost his army, he was destroyed without hands, that is to say, he died of grief. As for the mention of evening and morning [in that fourteenth verse], this signifies the succession of day and night.
Verse 15. "And it came to pass that when I, Daniel, had seen the vision, I sought to understand it." He be[wash my mouth]held the vision by way of a picture or likeness, and he failed to understand it. Consequently, not everyone who sees comprehends what he has seen; it is just as if we read the Holy Scripture with our eyes and do not understand it with our heart. (p. 538)
"...And behold, one stood before me who re[wash my mouth]sembled the appearance of a man." Angels, after all, are not actually men by nature, but they resemble men in appearance. For example, three persons appeared as men to Abraham at the oak of Mamre (Gen. 18), and yet they certainly were not men, for one of them was worshipped as the Lord. And so the Savior also stated in the Gospel: "Abraham beheld My day; he beheld it and rejoiced" (John 8:56).


Migne Footnotes


B The Vatican MSS, in agreement with the Sangermane MS, as quoted by Montfaucon, reads phelmoni in Roman letters [instead of the Greek letters of the text]. Other printed editions read pelmoni or pelimoni (in Roman letters).

C Victorinus says that the word "days" is not contained in the Hebrew original nor in the Brescian codices, but it was probably inserted from Theodotion or else inserted here from the margin as a word to be understood.

[FONT=&quot]D Two manuscripts and the earlier printed editions have "sons" instead of "brothers." Victorinus long ago corrected this to the true reading, with the aid of the Florentine codices, and under the influence of the actual account in I Maccabees, chap. 2, verse 8. The brothers of Judas Maccabaeus were Simon, Joseph, and Jonathan. Compare also Josephus, Anti[wash my mouth]quities, X, 9.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

(original translation by Gleason L Archer Baker Book House c. 1958)
[/FONT]

From wikipedia...

Jerome (ca. 347 – September 30, 420; Greek: Ευσέβιος Σωφρόνιος Ιερώνυμος, Latin: Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus) is best known as the translator of the Bible from Greek and Hebrew into Latin. He also was a Christian apologist. Jerome's edition of the Bible, the Vulgate, is still an important text of the Roman Catholic Church. He is recognized by the Roman Catholic Church as a canonized Saint and Doctor of the Church. He is also recognized as a saint by the Eastern Orthodox Church, where he is known as St. Jerome of Stridonium or Blessed Jerome ("Blessed" in this context does not have the sense of being less than a saint, as in the West).


So, you take the reading of a "scholar" who the Roman Catholic Church has deemed so good that they would use his translation and call it an "important text" to prove your point that Antiochus Epiphanes is the fulfilment of the "little Horn" and not papal rome? Secondly, Jerome lived BEFORE the fulfillment of papal rome. I am sure if he had lived AFTER Papal Rome's fulfilment of prophecy he would have come to the same conclusion as all the reformers... That indeed, the RCC is the "little horn" power, and the 1st beast of Rev 13.

 

[JohnT]

From wikipedia...
So, you take the reading of a "scholar" who the Roman Catholic Church has deemed so good that they would use his translation and call it an "important text" to prove your point that Antiochus Epiphanes is the fulfilment of the "little Horn" and not papal rome? Secondly, Jerome lived BEFORE the fulfillment of papal rome. I am sure if he had lived AFTER Papal Rome's fulfilment of prophecy he would have come to the same conclusion as all the reformers... That indeed, the RCC is the "little horn" power, and the 1st beast of Rev 13.

I copied as a proof of the belief that the prophecy was fulfilled by Antiochus as early as the 3rd century.

Please drop the nonsense about "papal rome" and "pagan rome" There is no distinction as far as recognized church historians have stated.

Yes, indeed, he was a scholar, and your quotes do not lessen that fact. Your wikipedia clip indicates the esteem with which he has been held in the universal church, as well as the Roman Catholic church; he was a Doctor of the church.

YOU or other SDAs in particulat may not like him because he is considered very Roman Catholic, but that is your loss, not mine. I take the good things from a world class scholar, and use them, as his expertise far exceeds mine. I do not agree with all he says, but neither so I entirely dismiss him.

What you cannot get around though is the fact that the early church believed that Antiochus fulfilled the prophecy. That makes the entire Millerite band and followers, like EGW flow against the flow of church history, and more importantly, flows against those who were several generations of Antiochus.

 

[OntheDL]

I copied as a proof of the belief that the prophecy was fulfilled by Antiochus as early as the 3rd century.

Please drop the nonsense about "papal rome" and "pagan rome" There is no distinction as far as recognized church historians have stated.

Yes, indeed, he was a scholar, and your quotes do not lessen that fact. Your wikipedia clip indicates the esteem with which he has been held in the universal church, as well as the Roman Catholic church; he was a Doctor of the church.

YOU or other SDAs in particulat may not like him because he is considered very Roman Catholic, but that is your loss, not mine. I take the good things from a world class scholar, and use them, as his expertise far exceeds mine. I do not agree with all he says, but neither so I entirely dismiss him.

What you cannot get around though is the fact that the early church believed that Antiochus fulfilled the prophecy. That makes the entire Millerite band and followers, like EGW flow against the flow of church history, and more importantly, flows against those who were several generations of Antiochus.

Wow, talk about having some attitude problem...

Here is the other side of the story...

Why is it necessary in unbelief to look for another Antichrist? Hence in the seventh chapter of Daniel Antichrist is forcefully described by a horn arising in the time of the 4th kingdom. For it grew from [among] our powerful ones, more horrible, more cruel, and more greedy, because by reckoning the pagans and our Christians by name, a lesser [greater?] struggle for the temporals is not recorded in any preceding time. Therefore the ten horns are the whole of our temporal rulers, and the horn has arisen from the ten horns, having eyes and a mouth speaking great things against the Lofty One, and wearing out the saints of the Most High, and thinking that he is able to change times and laws.” (Daniel 7:8, 25 quoted) …"For so our clergy foresee the lord pope, as it is said of the eighth blaspheming little head.---John Wyclif, De Veritate Sacrae Scripturae, vol. 3 pp. 262, 263

Daniel and Paul had predicted that Antichrist would sit in the temple of God... We affirm him to be the Pope . . Some persons think us too severe and censorious when we call the Roman pontiff "Antichrist", but those who are of this opinion do not consider that they bring the same charge of presumption against Paul himself, after whom we speak. ---John Calvin Prophetic Faith of our Fathers, Vol.2, p.437

I am practically cornered, and can hardly doubt any more, that the Pope is really the Antichrist... because everything so exactly corresponds to the way of his life, actions, words and commandments. ---Martin Luther, Schriften, Vol.214 col.234.

We are not the first who interpret the Papacy as the kingdom of Antichrist ...He (John Purvey in 1390 AD) rightly and truly pronounces the Pope 'Antichrist' as he is, . . a witness indeed, foreordained by God to confirm our doctrine. ---Martin Luther, Commentarius in Apocalypsin, Purvey, Reprint preface.

As for your Roman Church, as it is now corrupted… I no more doubt but that it is the synagogue of Satan, and the head therof, called the Pope, to be the man of sin of whom the apostle speaketh. ---John Knox, The Zurich Letters, p.199

The pope's forbidding matrimony, and to eat of meats created of God for man's use, which is devilish doctrine by Paul's prophecy,… are tokens good enough that he is the right antichrist, and his doctrine sprung of the devil. ---William Tyndale, An Answer to Sir Thomas More's Dialogue, in Works, vol. 3, p. 171

 

[JohnT]

Wow, talk about having some attitude problem... Here is the other side of the story... Why is it necessary in unbelief to look for another Antichrist?

Since when is name calling a substitute for scholarship?

Your calling Jerome an unbeliever and Antichrist is historically inaccurate, and simply an attempt to dismiss his entire body of work summarily. If you are able to come up with better scholarship OF YOUR OWN do not dismiss him outright.

Hence in the seventh chapter of Daniel Antichrist is forcefully described by a horn arising in the time of the 4th kingdom..---John Wyclif, De Veritate Sacrae Scripturae, vol. 3 pp. 262, 263

Wycif is not a contemporary of Jerome, and the fact that he writes several centuries (perhaps 10) later and does not mention Jerome signifies that his focus wea not Jerme per se.

Instead, you are attempting to use guilt by association-- very poor logic.

Daniel and Paul had predicted that Antichrist would sit in the temple of God... ---John Calvin Prophetic Faith of our Fathers, Vol.2, p.437

The same holds true for Calvin except he is writing in the 1400s, even later than Wyclif. By quoting Calvin, am I to suppose you are a Calvinist, now? Wow! a TULIP in the form of a SDA! Amazing

I am practically cornered, and can hardly doubt any more, that the Pope is really the Antichrist... ---Martin Luther, Schriften, Vol.214 col.234.


We ---Martin Luther, Commentarius in Apocalypsin, Purvey, Reprint preface.E]

As for your Roman Church, as it is now corrupted… ---John Knox, The Zurich Letters, p.199

The pope's forbidding matrimony, and to eat of meats created of God for man's use, ---William Tyndale, An Answer to Sir Thomas More's Dialogue, in Works, vol. 3, p. 171 [/quote]

Each of these quotes have significant ellipses, and leave much out.

Each of these quotes do not reference Jerome directly.

Unless you are trying to morph this thread into an anti Catholic thread, NONE OF THE QUOTES HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE OP.

As such that post irrationally uses a wide paintbrush to discredit a person based upon what people wrote over 1000 years later than Jerome, and it does not deal with his writing one iota.

I posted the quote as proof that it was the belief of Jerome, and the early Church Fathers that it was their belief that Antiochus was indeed the fulfillment of the prophecy. Instead of dealing with that, you go off onto an anti-Catholic rant.

Deal with what I posted, not your prejudices.

Prove by using solid scholarship that the position mentioned by Jerome was in error.

But if you want to go bash Catholics, you are welcome to go to the Catholic section, and rant away there on your own thread, OK?

 

[JohnT]

Here are 8 reasons why the SDA position can not support an inerrant Bible.

1) God created Scripture so that if you try to justify a mistranslation; you also screw up other Scriptures also. Such is the case for “years” on Daniel 8:14. First, .I admit that the word “days” is an acceptable mistranslation, most likely an attempt to make sense of the vision, and it is a difficult passage. Therefore it should read “evenings and mornings” as most RELIABLE translations have it now. Certainly anyone who tries to put “years” into the phrase simply does not know Hebrew.

2) Translating Scripture requires that the interpreter allows Scripture to speak for itself, imparting no preconceived ideas into it. In other words, the words that God placed there must precede any other notions, such as one’s theology, or interpretation of history. For example, Scripture indicated that the name of Antichrist adds up to 666, and all sorts of morons try to prove that such-and-such is the Antichrist. They make fools of themselves, nut they do not change Scripture one iota.

3) Following the example of the above, it matters not what such and such says about Antiochus. To be sure, he desecrated the Temple, sacrificing a pig on the Holy of Holies; that surely fits the description of the Abomination of Desecration. But to say that it can’t be him because “evenings and mornings” actually means ”years” is unwarranted foolishness. The ones disliking linking Antiochus to the prophecy must find another person whom it represents, USING THE WORDS “EVENINGS AND MORNINGS”

4) That is because any other translation screws up Scriptures. The Hebrew word meaning evening appears 138 or so times in the OT. All the time, excepting 3, the word id translated as “evening”, or a form of it in the KJV, Daniel 8:14 being one of those three exceptions. Note that the statistical significance of the event is about 1.5%, and in NONE of those times is that ever translated as “year” Therefore, you have a 100% translation of that word as “evening.

5) Similarly, the Hebrew word meaning morning appears 208 or so times in the OT. ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of the times, the KJV translates it as “morning. No wiggle room there. Both words appear a total of about 340 times in OT, and KJV translates them as they were written in all but three times, Dan 8:14 being the exception. However we must also look at the times that the words “evenings and mornings appear together to see how SDAs can screw up Scripture.

6) There about 9 times that they appear together. ALL of them, excepting KJV Daniel translate it as they are written. Significantly, the phrase also appears in Dan8:26. EVERY RELIABLE TRANSLATION says “evenings and mornings”, and this is significant because it explains the vision. Therefore what the translators messed up in vs 14, they corrected in vs 26. That proves that the first translation should read “evenings and mornings” and not “years” as SDAs want to wrongly insert.

7) That gets back to the need for uniformity in translating a phrase in Scripture. If the CONTEXT (NOT EGW) warrants it, translators may use other terms, but there must be warranted evidence for it. There is NO OTHER reason for SDAs adopting that belief other than the fact that it agrees with the baseless assumptions of White’s eschatology. In other words, they place the Millerite math above the common sense translation of Scripture.

8) Here is where following EGW will screw up Scripture: IT SUPPORTS EVOLUTION. Of the 9 times the phrase Evening and Morning is in Scripture, it is in Genesis 1, five times. Thus to be consistent with the SDA misinterpretation, one needs to read Genesis 1 as “and evening and morning was the FIRST YEAR” . SDAs are thus confronted to drop Miller’s math or adopt evolution. No other course is consistent with translating Scripture consistently. Hope you all can see that.

 

[OntheDL]

You asked for non-SDA commentaries on the papal Rome distinction. There you have them. The protestant interpretation of the little horn power.

Your premise does not support your conclusion. And it's clear you have some gripe with the SDA church and what we teach. So I will not waste any more of my time writing to someone who will not listen.

 

[JohnT]

You asked for non-SDA commentaries on the papal Rome distinction. There you have them. The protestant interpretation of the little horn power.

Your premise does not support your conclusion. And it's clear you have some gripe with the SDA church and what we teach. So I will not waste any more of my time writing to someone who will not listen.

AH! Running away and hide from the truth, I see.

FIRST:
None of your quotes in your RANT you made made that distinction you allege.

SECOND:
None of the authors you cited were church historians

THIRD:
You did not mention anything to prove your contention. therefore they are baseless

FOURTH:
You seem to assume that your anti Catholic RANT is what the SDA church teaches? Is it true that your church calls the RC church the "Antichrist" and those in it "non believers"? If that is true, then yes, indeed, I have legitimate issues with the teaching of the SDA church.

FIFTH:
Your RANT has absolutely nothing to do with the thesis of the OP and inerrancy as it pertains to the axiom. It seems as if you are seeking to derail the topic--since you are unable to respond to it factually, or without going off topic.

If you are willing to be logical, and civil, then further discussion may be warranted. If not, then your absence of refutation and civility is proof of the contention of the OP.

 

[JohnT]

SDAs are adept at taking things out of context, and they believe that there is such a thing as the year-day principle. To do that they must:

1. Find a reputable, recognized Hebrew grammar that states the precise grammar construction involved. Otherwise you impose willy-nilly your own ideas INTO Scripture. Totally unwarranted.
2. Find a scripture where it says that there is a such a principle as it relates to prophecy. The CONTEXT is paramount for that for it or else all examples of the term being translated as years.
3. If either of these conditions can not be met, it is academically required to admit that there is no such thing as year=day, and the concept is totally without Scriptural or linguistic merit.

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


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

 

[RND]

THE LOWER THE DEGREE OF BELIEF IN AN INERRANT AUTOGRAPHA, THE EASIER IT IS TO BE SDA. CONVERSELY, THE HIGHER DEGREE ONE BELIEVES IN AN INERRANT AUTOGRAPHA, THE LESS LIKELY ONE IS TO BE A SDA

That's funny!