Let me put these questions out again...

[k4c]

Here are some very important questions you need to answer. If you can answer them in such a way that it leaves no doubt in my mind then and only then will I be able to receive what you say.
Here are the verses and questions to go with them.

Daniel 7:8 "I was considering the horns, and there was another horn, a little one, coming up among them, before whom three of the first horns were plucked out by the roots. And there, in this horn, were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking pompous words.

Who and what is the other little horn that comes up from among them?

Daniel 7:20-21 "and about the ten horns that were on its head, and about the other horn which came up, before which three fell, namely, that horn which had eyes and a mouth which spoke pompous words, whose appearance was greater than his fellows. "I was watching; and the same horn was making war against the saints, and prevailing against them,

Again, who is this other horn, which had eyes and a mouth that speaks pompous words?

Daniel 7:24-25 The ten horns are ten kings who shall arise from this kingdom. And another shall rise after them; he shall be different from the first ones, and shall subdue three kings. He shall speak pompous words against the Most High, shall persecute the saints of the Most High, and shall intend to change times and law. Then the saints shall be given into his hand for a time and times and half a time.

Again, who is this other kingdom that rises after the ten, that is different
than the ten, who subdues three kings, who speaks pompous words against the Most High God and who changes God's law and God's time?

If you can aswer these questions clearly with solid facts then we can talk because when one identifies the little horn and understands this prophecy it will change their life and belief.

I am vey much looking foreward to your answers...

 

[VictorC]

I am vey much looking foreward to your answers...

My answer was one of those you chose not to respond to:
build upon this foundation gold or wood/hay/stubble

 

[k4c]

My answer was one of those you chose not to respond to:
build upon this foundation gold or wood/hay/stubble

Sorry, I must have missed this answer.

Do you have any more information on your interpretation of Daniel 7 or maybe a website that I can read in more detail?

It seems to me that this little horn, who has up rooted three kingdoms and has changed the law and time of God and has worn out the saints, is Papal Rome.

Papal Rome did up root the three kingdoms, this is recorded in our history books. Papal Rome did change Gods law (2nd commandment) and did change God's time (Sabbath to Sunday) and did murder millions of Christians during the dark ages. It's very hard to deny these facts and there are many more.

 

[VictorC]

Sorry, I must have missed this answer.

Do you have any more information on your interpretation of Daniel 7 or maybe a website that I can read in more detail?

Yes, I do - but I would prefer to examine the Scriptures, and allow them to toss rocks at the model you're using until you're ready to examine an alternative model.

It seems to me that this little horn, who has up rooted three kingdoms and has changed the law and time of God and has worn out the saints, is Papal Rome.

This is a problem that comes from assigning actions to a past event and to a kingdom that doesn't exist anymore, when I believe they exist still in our future.

For example, it is only an assumption that Adventism has, that assigns ecclesiastical tasks to a body politic. In order to be consistent, you would have identified the properties of a Christian church that pertain to Babylon, Media-Persia, and Greece. Do you see that the facts have been interpreted into a model that isn't consistent?

Papal Rome did up root the three kingdoms, this is recorded in our history books. Papal Rome did change Gods law (2nd commandment) and did change God's time (Sabbath to Sunday) and did murder millions of Christians during the dark ages. It's very hard to deny these facts and there are many more.

Denial of facts is precisely what you have just done.

It isn't possible for a Papal entity to change a law that never existed during the tenure of the Catholic church. I must have a hundred posts addressed to you, mva1985, Man-ofGod, TrustAndObey, HonorTheSabbath, and I'm not sure who else that demonstrate conclusively that the sabbath is part of the ten commandments, the Mosaic covenant. You assume that there has been no change made at the cross and the resurrection, and instead of mediating a new covenant, Jesus is somehow officiating under the law of Moses.

The problem (among others) with that is this requires Him to be officiating under the order of Levi. Moses never made allowance for another priesthood under Melchisedek, and this is why Hebrews 7:28 tells us "For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore". The next chapter addresses the covenants specifically, and tells us the covenant from Sinai was faulty and ready to vanish away.

That's the ten commandments, k4c.
That covenant was the sole source of the sabbath.
Those are the facts portrayed in Scripture that you have never been taught in the SDA church.

Hebrews 8:7
For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
Hebrews 10:9
Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

The covenant from Sinai has been abolished, and the sabbath ordinance with it.
The pope never had a sabbath commandment in his possession that he could have changed.

That's merely a claim Catholicism makes, and they're just as guilty of making grave theological errors as Adventism. If you look at the categories on CARM where I do most of my posting, you will see that they place Roman Catholicism in the "other religions" section (meaning they regard it as a cult), and the seventh-day Adventist church is in the "heterodox" section. Adventism has a few things going for it, but they also copy a lot of their theology from Catholicism. This nonsense is repeated at every Revelation Seminar that has ever been, and you've been fed unScriptural poison.

This is why I beckon all who read me to evaluate their traditions against the final authority of the Bible.

Jeremiah 16:19
O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ends of the earth, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit.

Ellen White was one of those vanities wherein there is no prophet nor profit, just as Jeremiah 23:32 asserts "they shall not profit this people at all".

Let me know if my linked post contains sufficient reason for you to consider an alternative to your theory.

Victor

 

[StormyOne]

it's not going to get through Victor, though I applaud your effort.... it is hard to convince people who believe they are correctly interpreting prophecy that they might be incorrect...

 

[VictorC]

it's not going to get through Victor, though I applaud your effort.... it is hard to convince people who believe they are correctly interpreting prophecy that they might be incorrect...

Anything can get through to anyone led by the Spirit of the Lord.
It starts with admission that I know nothing and am willing to learn, that the Scriptures finally speak with clarity. The learning curve that comes from quiet submission to the Bible causes answers to pour with increasing ease over time.

People who know everything already aren't able to learn.
Teenagers are a prime example of that.

Victor

 

[StormyOne]

Anything can get through to anyone led by the Spirit of the Lord.
It starts with admission that I know nothing and am willing to learn, that the Scriptures finally speak with clarity. The learning curve that comes from quiet submission to the Bible causes answers to pour with increasing ease over time.

People who know everything already aren't able to learn.
Teenagers are a prime example of that.

Victor

well time will tell, you think it has gotten through with that list of names you mentioned earlier? I doubt that it has, though I could be very wrong...

 

[VictorC]

well time will tell, you think it has gotten through with that list of names you mentioned earlier? I doubt that it has, though I could be very wrong...

You have a point.
Adventists were taught from a source that wouldn't submit to Scripture, and the example Ellen White left makes Adventists a particularly hard group to reach.

We are not to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They gather together a mass of Scripture and pile it as proof around their asserted theories. This has been done over and over again during the past fifty years. And while the Scriptures are God's Word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such application moves one pillar of the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God. {MR760 19.2}

The pen of "inspiration" shut the door against any scholarship that examined her "pillars" of her faith system for 50 years, as this quote from her assessment of Elder A.F. Ballenger's points concerning the investigative judgment admits to.

Ellen White's bottom line was she considered the Scriptures to be a great mistake.

Victor

 

[k4c]

Ellen White was one of those vanities wherein there is no prophet nor profit, just as Jeremiah 23:32 asserts "they shall not profit this people at all".

Let me know if my linked post contains sufficient reason for you to consider an alternative to your theory.

Victor

First of all, I didn't get a link post to consider.

Secondly, I don't follow Ellen White nor do I read her books.


The interpretaion of Daniel as being Papal Rome did not originate with EGW. Many hold to this interpretation, for example;

http://www.christiantrumpetsounding.com/reformation_views.htm

There is just way too much evidence and historical proof that Daniel was in fact referring to Papal Rome, as will as, Pagan Rome. You have not given me anything to change my mind nor have you given me anything to make me confess that I was wrong so until you do, here is where I stand, and as you can see, I don't stand alone.​

​

 

[VictorC]

First of all, I didn't get a link post to consider.

Yes, you did - it was in my very first post on this thread:
build upon this foundation gold or wood/hay/stubble
I also wrote a similar post for mva1985:
Ellen White relied on current tradition rather than inspiration

You have terrible memory retention, as well as an unwillingness to use the links I submit.

Secondly, I don't follow Ellen White nor do I read her books.

I have examined the Fundamental Beliefs of the seventh-day Adventist church, and found that 19 of the 28 Fundamentals contain language dependent on Ellen White. In the past I believe you mentioned that you attended this church, where you have a 2/3 chance of hearing Ellen over the Bible from the pulpit.
Most Adventists haven't spent very much time reading Ellen White's writings, but they are steeped in them none the less.

The interpretaion of Daniel as being Papal Rome did not originate with EGW. Many hold to this interpretation, for example;
http://www.christiantrumpetsounding.com/reformation_views.htm

Many of Ellen's beliefs didn't originate with Ellen, a point you seemed to miss in my previous post concerning Catholic theology present in Adventism (Sophia7 has documented much more of this than I have).
That was true of her eschatology, as well. She peppered the model she got from Hyslop and others until she could fabricate a good story line centered on 1844, and sold the story to the public as The Great Controversy.

So here you are, referencing what the Waldenses believed.
I am not impressed by your preference to uninspired theories over Scripture, especially those written in a time long before the fourth beast of Daniel existed, and they wouldn't have been able to identify this beast.

It was also popular belief that the church was the replacement for Israel, I read this in a number of commentaries written in Ellen's time, and Ellen simply picked up on this tradition and "saw" that "old Jerusalem shall never be rebuilt - and published that tidbit in 1851.

Never mind that Jesus expected Jerusalem to return to the Jews, and said so as recorded in Luke 21:24.
The Bible is correct.
Ellen was wrong, and so were a few thousand dollars worth of dusty commentaries I read at Iliff Theological Seminary that they consider precious (I attended a local Bible college, and used the seminary's library, as ours wasn't very good).

There is just way too much evidence and historical proof that Daniel was in fact referring to Papal Rome, as will as, Pagan Rome. You have not given me anything to change my mind nor have you given me anything to make me confess that I was wrong so until you do, here is where I stand, and as you can see, I don't stand alone.

No, of course not.
History is replete with traditional theories that last until the Bible vindicates what it has said all along. That happens when history catches up with the Bible, and regarding the beasts of Daniel 7 that time has come.

Your "evidence" contradicts the Scriptures that I gave you already, which is why you aren't able or willing to offer a single comment on what they say.
That isn't proof.
It is merely wishful thinking.

Victor

 

[sentipente]

K4c, I will ask you the same question I asked some Mormons who wanted to explore with me the nature of God: Why are these questions important?

 

[k4c]

K4c, I will ask you the same question I asked some Mormons who wanted to explore with me the nature of God: Why are these questions important?

Because it sets the stage for who receives our worship. The one true God or Satan?

Satan has said in his heart that he will be like the Most High God.

Satan has set up a system of worship that is totally against the one true God. This system of worship receives it's authority and throne from Satan.

Revelation 13:1-9 Then I stood on the sand of the sea. And I saw a beast rising up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and on his horns ten crowns, and on his heads a blasphemous name. Now the beast which I saw was like a leopard, his feet were like the feet of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion. And the dragon gave him his power, his throne, and great authority. I saw one of his heads as if it had been mortally wounded, and his deadly wound was healed. And all the world marveled and followed the beast. So they worshiped the dragon who gave authority to the beast; and they worshiped the beast, saying, "Who is like the beast? Who is able to make war with him?'' And he was given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, and he was given authority to continue for forty-two months. Then he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name, His tabernacle, and those who dwell in heaven. And it was granted to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them. And authority was given him over every tribe, tongue, and nation. And all who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. If anyone has an ear, let him hear.

Through this system of worship people are worshipping Satan and the out come is not good for them.

This is why these things matter.

For those who have sleeping saying, "Pease and safety" then sudden distruction.

 

[sentipente]

Because it sets the stage for who receives our worship. The one true God or Satan?

Then I take it you believe that Satan is worthy of worship. You must agree with his opinion that he is equal to the most high. The Creator disagrees but you may reserve your right to be independent of His opinions.