Miller's 15 Different Proofs

[djconklin]

The first thing we need to realize is that Miller is saying that he can prove the time in 15 different ways. So, if the cricis somehow, someway manage to show that 14 don't wortk, that still leaves the fifteenth.

I. I prove it by the time given by Moses, in the 26th chapter of Leviticus, that the people of God are to be in bondage to the kingdom's of this world; or in Babylon, literal and mystical; which seven times cannot be understood less than seven times 360 revolutions of earth in its orbit, making 2520 years. I believe this began according to Jeremiah xv. 4, "And I will cause them to be removed into all kingdoms of the earth, because of Manasseh, the son of Hezekiah, king of Judah, for that which he did in Jerusalem," and Isa. vii. 8, "For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Resin: and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people,"— when Manasseh was carried captive to Babylon, and Israel was no more a nation, —see chronology, 2 Chron. xxxiii. 9, "So Manasseh made Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to err, and to do worse than the heathen, whom the Lord had destroyed before the children of Israel,"—the 677th year B. C. Then take 677 out of 2520, leaves A. D. 1843, when the punishment of the people of God will end. (See Miller's Lectures, p. 251.)

So, what's wrong with this one free?

I found this page to be helpful: http://ellenwhiteanswers.org/gen_dyn.php?file=media/pdf/14+Questions-Answers.pdf -- answers some of the claims made on another thread as well.

See also http://www.atsjats.org/publication_file.php?pub_id=25&journal=1&type=pdf & http://www.atsjats.org/publication_file.php?pub_id=243&journal=1&type=pdf by Dr. Jon Paulien

For a collection of papers on Historicism see http://www.historicism.org/Index.html

Another interesting source: http://users.bigpond.net.au/mhattonSDA/WHY%20I%20AM%20STILL%20AN%20HISTORICIST.htm

I just put in a ILL request for Kai Arasola's dissertation The End of Historicism. It may take up to two weeks to get it.

Goldstein's book Graffiti can be found online here: http://www.pacificpress.com/pp/misdta/Chapters/0816320071.pdf; he notes that "If the year-day principle isn’t biblical, then instead of just attacking the doctrine, or mocking the books that defend it, why not debunk—point by point—this defense of it? I’ve never heard him, or anyone, even try."


Nichol's book The Midnight Cry can be found here: http://www.giveshare.org/churchhistory/midnight-cry-nichol.pdf; search for "secondary proofs." Very interesting word "secondary."

 

[Jimlarmore]

Thankyou for the site on Ratzlaff's comments on Miller's message. I think Tall has read his work a lot. It's going to take a while to go thru all of this information.

Thanks and God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[mva1985]

marking for future reference.....

 

[djconklin]

Thankyou for the site on Ratzlaff's comments on Miller's message. I think Tall has read his work a lot.

Yeah, that was quite interesting to see that much of the stuff we're talking about here has already been dealt with--almost a year ago!

Reading Ratzlaff (and a couple of others I can think of off-hand) is like drinking the Kool-Aid.

I'll be gone for at least a couple of days. My dad's computer can't seem to recognize any printer that is hooked up to it--latest is the computer can't even find the lpt1 port! WHAT?!? And the library gave me three new books, so it'll take a day to scan and create a text file for each and then another day just to do the comparing--so probably Monday I'll be back.

 

[tall73]

edit, time stamp issue, see below.

 

[tall73]

Thankyou for the site on Ratzlaff's comments on Miller's message. I think Tall has read his work a lot. It's going to take a while to go thru all of this information.

Thanks and God Bless
Jim Larmore

I read one of his books, and the first few pages of another. I didn't really care for it. I did like his material on the shut door though. I thought the rest was a bit lacking. In fact I think I said as much regarding his magazine in this forum.

I don't think I have ever read those particular questions that I recall. Certainly I have not done so "a lot" . Nor have I once referenced any of Ratzlaff''s material in the making of my thread.

But it doesn't surprise me that others see the issue with the quotes in EW.

Now it is one thing to post a link and say it is solved, and another to show your point.

Post the stuff you think addresses my issue over in that thread and we will look at it.

 

[Jimlarmore]

I read one of his books, and the first few pages of another. I didn't really care for it. I did like his material on the shut door though. I thought the rest was a bit lacking. In fact I think I said as much regarding his magazine in this forum.

I don't think I have ever read those particular questions that I recall. Certainly I have not done so "a lot" . Nor have I once referenced any of Ratzlaff''s material in the making of my thread.

But it doesn't surprise me that others see the issue with the quotes in EW.

Now it is one thing to post a link and say it is solved, and another to show your point.

Post the stuff you think addresses my issue over in that thread and we will look at it.

I'm still looking thru the sites. It's my understanding that you own "Graffiti in the Holy of Holies" by Goldstein. I don't but reading the three legged stool posted in D.J.'s site it appears I should get that book and read it. Also, my pastor is getting me the Daniel and Revelation study and the books put out by the Glasier bay study on the pre-advent judgement. Most of them are in soft cover and very affordable. With all of that said I think Goldstein is pretty much spot on in his assessement of the critics of the pre-advent judgement. Most of them attack EGW , adventism and the church leadership instead of the primary issues concerning the IJ. If they really are interested in the truth then why don't they refute the study done by the Glasier bay group point by point? Things like the day for a year principle or the true application of the context surrounding Dan 8:14. To my knowledge no one has done that to date. If they could have refuted the study by now we should have ink/print on the refutation up and running for everyone to see and understand.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

p.s. If you want to re-hash some old issues I'm up for it. Most of my recent study has evolved around the sanctuary and Christ's movement thru it. It's primarily thru that study that my confidence in the IJ has steadily grown.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

I'm still looking thru the sites. It's my understanding that you own "Graffiti in the Holy of Holies" by Goldstein. I don't but reading the three legged stool posted in D.J.'s site it appears I should get that book and read it. Also, my pastor is getting me the Daniel and Revelation study and the books put out by the Glasier bay study on the pre-advent judgement. Most of them are in soft cover and very affordable. With all of that said I think Goldstein is pretty much spot on in his assessement of the critics of the pre-advent judgement. Most of them attack EGW , adventism and the church leadership instead of the primary issues concerning the IJ. If they really are interested in the truth then why don't they refute the study done by the Glasier bay group point by point? Things like the day for a year principle or the true application of the context surrounding Dan 8:14. To my knowledge no one has done that to date. If they could have refuted the study by now we should have ink/print on the refutation up and running for everyone to see and understand.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

p.s. If you want to re-hash some old issues I'm up for it. Most of my recent study has evolved around the sanctuary and Christ's movement thru it. It's primarily thru that study that my confidence in the IJ has steadily grown.

How can anyone believe that those points have not been refuted. Des Ford did it and then a year ago or so it was covered on the Atoday Website when they went over the Sabbath School lesson on 1844 the gospel and the Ij.

What you must really mean is that it has not been refuted in your mind. And it is pretty clear why it is not...because to refute those things refutes EGW and that refutes the whole meaning of Adventism to those who hold EGW in an unbiblical esteem.

By the way Goldstein's book Graffiti in the Holy of Holies is available on Google books
http://books.google.com/books?id=Ow...oly+of+holies&sig=8y2RaYCPv8jc0-Hl9fxIJc-5L_A

 

[djconklin]

I don't use EGW for the IJ--I use only the Bible, it has not been refuted.

 

[Jimlarmore]

How can anyone believe that those points have not been refuted. Des Ford did it and then a year ago or so it was covered on the Atoday Website when they went over the Sabbath School lesson on 1844 the gospel and the Ij.

What you must really mean is that it has not been refuted in your mind. And it is pretty clear why it is not...because to refute those things refutes EGW and that refutes the whole meaning of Adventism to those who hold EGW in an unbiblical esteem.

By the way Goldstein's book Graffiti in the Holy of Holies is available on Google books
http://books.google.com/books?id=Ow...oly+of+holies&sig=8y2RaYCPv8jc0-Hl9fxIJc-5L_A

Desmond Ford does indeed bring up some good points to think about but he does not refute what the Glasier Bay group brings to the table at all. Ford and Ratzlaff sing out of the same song book and they are both slightly off key. They have and hold just enough credibility to sway some of the less solidly grounded in the church to their side. LAM ( life assurance ministries) which is Ratzlaff's baby is there primarily to entice ex-adventists to his camp.

The main areas that they are flat in their singing is :

1. The day for a year principle which is solidly supported by the Bible and Christ Himself.

2. Ignoring the original language used in the context of Dan 8:14 which clearly has sanctuarial themes.

3. Invalidation of the 7th day Sabbath

4. Misinterpreted use of righteousness by faith.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[tall73]

Desmond Ford does indeed bring up some good points to think about but he does not refute what the Glasier Bay group brings to the table at all. Ford and Ratzlaff sing out of the same song book and they are both slightly off key. They have and hold just enough credibility to sway some of the less solidly grounded in the church to their side. LAM ( life assurance ministries) which is Ratzlaff's baby is there primarily to entice ex-adventists to his camp.

The main areas that they are flat in their singing is :

1. The day for a year principle which is solidly supported by the Bible and Christ Himself.

2. Ignoring the original language used in the context of Dan 8:14 which clearly has sanctuarial themes.

3. Invalidation of the 7th day Sabbath

4. Misinterpreted use of righteousness by faith.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

You are sorely lacking in information on this topic Jim.

A. Ford is a Sabbatarian.

B. It is Glacierview Not Glasier Bay.

C. Ford is nothing like Ratzlaff in his arguments. Ratzlaff has pretty weak theological arguments on the sanctuary issue. Ford on the other hand does not. And even the Glacierview committee (prominent scholars and administrators) wound up agreeing with a number of Ford's points and recognizing difficulties due to his book. Some were already aware of them and were glad he brought them to the table.

D. Many of the articles in what you term the Glasier Bay materials (others refer to as the DARCOM, or Daniel and Revelation Committee Series) were responded to in Ford's book before they were even compiled into that series. They were often re-prints of existing articles from scholarly journals. And if you read them you would realize they spend countless chapters analyzing thins that have no direct bearing on Ford's concerns, and seem reluctant to take on Ford's issues directly.

E. While Ratzlaff was a relative nobody Ford had more than just a little credibility as a man who trained many of the pastors in Australia and was much loved for his scholarly and debating skills (including debating for the Sabbath), as well as his message of righteousness by faith.

F. Ford is well aware of the sanctuary themes in Daniel. He is also aware that the original Hebrew that the KJV translated cleansed does NOT support our reading of the text. The Glacierview committee acknowledged that there was no strong verbal link to Lev. 16. Incidentally we have discussed this earlier, and I even quoted DARCOM and Glacier view materials while doing so. As I mentioned before if you want a more recent conversation PM me and I can link you to it.

G.. Have you read Ford's book on the issue?

Perhaps you should read the materials and history before commenting.

 

[Jimlarmore]

G.. Have you read Ford's book on the issue?

Perhaps you should read the materials and history before commenting.

Point well taken but I do have a clue. I have read a very lengthy article by Ford and his take on the IJ. He attacks the day for a year principle unsuccessfully and is not right on in his evaluation of the context of Dan 8:14 or the little horn being Antiochus Epiphanes later on.

Anyone can find out about the pertinent aspects of this here:
http://www.answers.com/topic/investigative-judgment

God Bless
Jim Larmroe

 

[tall73]

Edit, timestamp issue.

 

[tall73]

Point well taken but I do have a clue. I have read a very lengthy article by Ford and his take on the IJ. He attacks the day for a year principle unsuccessfully and is not right on in his evaluation of the context of Dan 8:14 or the little horn being Antiochus Epiphanes later on.

Anyone can find out about the pertinent aspects of this here:
http://www.answers.com/topic/investigative-judgment

God Bless
Jim Larmroe

A. I don't agree with some of Ford's conclusions.

B. You should really read his book, not just an article. Which article by him did you read?

C. The first two chapters of the book are all you really need to read.

Now have you read the Glacierview accounts? Have you read the report? Have you read the DARCOM series?

As to Goldstein's book, you may as well just skip it and read the DARCOM series because his book just refers back to it anyway, and Clifford is unbearably caustic throughout the book when referring to Ratzlaff. It was unprofessional at best.

 

[NightEternal]

You are sorely lacking in information on this topic Jim.

A. Ford is a Sabbatarian.

B. It is Glacierview Not Glasier Bay.

C. Ford is nothing like Ratzlaff in his arguments. Ratzlaff has pretty weak theological arguments on the sanctuary issue. Ford on the other hand does not. And even the Glacierview committee (prominent scholars and administrators) wound up agreeing with a number of Ford's points and recognizing difficulties due to his book. Some were already aware of them and were glad he brought them to the table.

D. Many of the articles in what you term the Glasier Bay materials (others refer to as the DARCOM, or Daniel and Revelation Committee Series) were responded to in Ford's book before they were even compiled into that series. They were often re-prints of existing articles from scholarly journals. And if you read them you would realize they spend countless chapters analyzing thins that have no direct bearing on Ford's concerns, and seem reluctant to take on Ford's issues directly.

E. While Ratzlaff was a relative nobody Ford had more than just a little credibility as a man who trained many of the pastors in Australia and was much loved for his scholarly and debating skills (including debating for the Sabbath), as well as his message of righteousness by faith.

F. Ford is well aware of the sanctuary themes in Daniel. He is also aware that the original Hebrew that the KJV translated cleansed does NOT support our reading of the text. The Glacierview committee acknowledged that there was no strong verbal link to Lev. 16. Incidentally we have discussed this earlier, and I even quoted DARCOM and Glacier view materials while doing so. As I mentioned before if you want a more recent conversation PM me and I can link you to it.

G.. Have you read Ford's book on the issue?

Perhaps you should read the materials and history before commenting.

 

[Jimlarmore]

Heres an inteview with Desmond Ford and Adventisttoday: I find what he says here very interesting, some of which is spot on but some not. I'll let the reader decide after going over this where they stand.

http://goodnewsunlimited.org/library/atodayinterview/part1.cfm

God bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Jimlarmore]

Now have you read the Glacierview accounts? Have you read the report? Have you read the DARCOM series?

My pastor is getting them for me as we speak. They are all in paper back and the whole series is under $75.00.

As to Goldstein's book, you may as well just skip it and read the DARCOM series because his book just refers back to it anyway, and Clifford is unbearably caustic throughout the book when referring to Ratzlaff. It was unprofessional at best.

I'm surprized you would conclude that about Goldstein. From the article D.J. provided ( the three legged stool ) he seemed very charitable to Ratzlaff and refused to judge the man stating that he was in no position to do so based on his own character flaws. If his book is anything like his article "Graffiti" then it would not be considered "caustic" by a fair minded reader at all.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Sophia7]

My pastor is getting them for me as we speak. They are all in paper back and the whole series is under $75.00.



I'm surprized you would conclude that about Goldstein. From the article D.J. provided ( the three legged stool ) he seemed very charitable to Ratzlaff and refused to judge the man stating that he was in no position to do so based on his own character flaws. If his book is anything like his article "Graffiti" then it would not be considered "caustic" by a fair minded reader at all.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

I read Graffiti before I ever started having questions on the sanctuary doctrine, and even then I thought that Goldstein was less than charitable toward Ratzlaff. Yes, he was caustic and judgmental, despite his claims to the contrary.

Also, the "article" that Conklin linked to is actually the first chapter of Goldstein's book. You should read the whole book before you comment on his tone, Jim. RC provided a link to it on Google Books, where you may be able to read more of the book, but it's still a preview, and it says that some pages have been omitted:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Ow...oly+of+holies&sig=8y2RaYCPv8jc0-Hl9fxIJc-5L_A

 

[tall73]

Edit timestamp.