• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.

Seventh-Day Adventists only; "the daily", a reconsideration of the evidences

Discussion in 'Traditional Adventists' started by The7thColporteur, Apr 22, 2018.

  1. BobRyan

    BobRyan Junior Member

    United States
    Thank you for that. :)

    Now I will get it down to a bullet point

    from 2010 Ellen White Symposium: "Ellen White And The 'Daily' Conflict"
    Modern Adventism. In modern Adventism, positions on the "daily" divide into three camps:
    (1) The Early Writings statement proves that the Paganism view is right,
    (2) the Early Writings statement proves that the Ministration view is right,
    (3) Ellen White denied that her writings had authority on these matters at all.

    Majority View. In 1840 the majority view of Millerites was that the daily was Roman Paganism. They argued that the noun "sacrifice" added to the text and that is it in fact the noun, "desolation," that is qualified by "daily" They say two consecutive desolating powers, Pagan Rome and Papal Rome.

    In the Early Writings statement, Ellen White mentioned the 1843 prophecy chart made by Charles Fitch and Apollos Hale as "directed by the hand of the Lord." That chart taught the Paganism View of the "daily.

    By 1850 there were three different interpretations of the daily in post-disappointment Adventism.

    1. Sabbatarian Adventists believed it was Roman Paganism.
    2. The Age to Come movement believed it was the Jewish sacrifices that would be restored in a restored temple. Until the 1870s, the daily as Jewish sacrifices were strongly attacked in Adventist publications.
    3. O. R. L. Crosier believed it was Christ's Heavenly Ministration, which was similar to the Jewish Sacrifices view. He also set times and believed in the Jewish restoration. The Age to Come view and Crosier also denied the 1844 date. Adventists adopted Crosier's view of the Heavenly Sactuary but kept the MIllerite view of the daily.

    4. New View. In 1900, Conradi discovered the New or Ministration view. He agreed that the noun "sacrifice" was wrongly added, but concluded that because the term daily was prefixed by article, it functioned by itself as a noun. He decided that Daniel did that on purpose. The OT background says that the daily encompasses all the services in the Sanctuary, not just the sacrifice. Based on biblical typology, Conradi concluded daily referred to Christ's continual heavenly ministry.

    The desolation then was the taking away of knowledge of Christ's heavenly mediation by papal Rome and onward, which made restoration of the heavenly sanctuary necessary. Willie White, A. G. Daniels, and others accepted this view, and it became a big argument in the United States. (This is a modification of option #3 above)
  2. The7thColporteur

    The7thColporteur Well-Known Member

    United States
    You are welcome brother. I try to be as accommodating as possible, so that there may be unity of mind/heart, and these things which cause division may be finally put to rest. I could have started with such bullet points, but without the detailed evidences, as was provided in the main, all positions would seem to be valid still, and would have led the reader to generally remain with what they started with. Instead I simply went through the Bible study and the historical evidences in its wake. Though bullet points, or single sentence summaries are useful, the goal was not simply to inform of the varied choices, but to elimninate all the invalid ones, leaving only the one most valid one.

    Therefore, the point of demonstrating all the outlying evidences, irrespective of the additional beliefs held by various persons, or even of the characters of the persons themselves, which only adds to distract from or confound the central point at issue [which is a logical fallacy, guilty by association or poisoning the well [ie, If such and such also believed this other thing, then the thing under discussion that is also believed is tainted; for instance Uriah Smith was wrong about a lot, but I do not throw out all of the book "Daniel and the Revelation"; and Josiah Litch was in error in regards Revelation 9, but I do not throw out the historical with his prophetical; William Miller was in error on 666 and 2520 being a time prophecy which was also on the 1843 chart, but I do not throw out that which is valid on the chart, based upon a thus saith the LORD, or in likewise assciation by name, Conradi, Crosier, etc. [for the study began with scripture [KJB], not persons]]], was to close all avenues which are not actually valid as a conclusion [though I still leave people to believe what they will on it, praying that thy will have at least considered the evidences].

    While "the daily" is mentioned on the 1843 chart, which I have in hand, there is no mention on the chart itself to what it was. It simply lists under the AD 508 the following, "Taking away of the daily sacrifice, Dan. 12:11,12", and that is all. No actual position was taken on the chart as to what specifically "the daily" was. All were free to determine for themeselves what it meant for them at the time. However, things were slightly different for the 1850 chart in the central column. Yet for the 1863 chart it changed again, and basically went back to a more simpler position, like as the 1843 chart. Thank God our position is based upon scripture {KJB] rather than creeds and fallible human charts [personally I have my own chart, and yet it is subject to scripture [KJB], and thus is flexible to be corrected by the word of God where found to be in deviation in any matter]. I have enough people running around with those 1843, 1850 charts, holding all manner of error, and presenting them to me as if they were infallible, their ideas impeachable and infallible [a claim of another system on earth, after another character], elevating Miller to a status of 'God-hand' [I just made up this term to describe the phenomena, not that they actually say this], along with others, such as J. Litch, U. Smith, E. J. Waggoner and so on. They are fulfilling what Jeremiah said of them:

    Jeremiah 23:21 KJB - I have not sent these prophets, yet they ran: I have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied.​

    So in conclusion, while there were several approaches to the issue in the past, the study presented in all its evidence eliminates as far as is possible all other avenues except the conclusion presented at its end. The study attempted to close all doors that led to places into which the Adventist could be mocked and attacked upon by studious non-Adventist, and that we might be a united front, standing upon the ground of solid present truth. We are counseled in the SOP/TOJ to study out all our positions, to know that we have a thus saith the LORD for each point to be presented in the last days, rather than assuming those before us were correct.

    This study eliminates any avenues for embarrasment, or areas to be tripped up at, in the other approaches on "the daily" of the 2,300 in Daniel, by those not of our movement. For instance, if I were to be in opposition to our movement [God forbid!] and I saw someone present the 'paganism' idea in a court of law, or theological defense of the faith, I would know exactly where to pierce that position, knowing where the chink in the armour is in several places. This study attempts, through its detail, to make sure that does not happen, but gives all the protection needful to overthrow all assaults of the doubting of our movements position on prophecy.

    So in final, bullet points are useful after a certain manner, but the purpose of this thread was to hopefully eliminate all but one viable option, not leave all options on the table [though again, I leave people to choose what they will remain with, and pray that they do not attempt to justify their position by that which they know cannot stand].

    If people choose not to read, that is of course their prerogative, but they have been given the option to know. After that, I cannot make them read, as my religion is Love, not compulsion.

    On a personal note, I am more frustrated by those who refuse evidence [even if detailed; they do realize that the SOP/TOJ and other books like conflict of the Ages series such as the Desire of Ages, The Great Controversy, etc., or pioneer material like the Two Republics, or general christian works like the History of the Reformation and so on are several hundreds of pages long, and the early movement wrote hundreds of pages documenting their psoition? which is why I get the same excuses for those materials, as the generation today says 'they're tooooo long', after they say the same for a sermon/study that goes beyond 30 minutes. We are a Laodicean [a Lazydicean, a Lackidazcean] generation, that is certain.] than have at least considered and rejected evidence. I have more sympathy with some ex-SDA, baptists, even Roman Catholics, et al., in their honest, sincere and specific questions, than those SDA who refuse to even consider the details of their own faith [but I would say the same for those in their present faith].
  3. BobRyan

    BobRyan Junior Member

    United States
    The point is that if you are presenting "reference material" then it is expected to be long and detailed - but first you have to state the case in something like executive summary format because the reader will look for about 30 seconds to see if this is something that jumps out with the problem-solution or something that you have to wade through page after page before you could even know what the issue is. Internet discussion boards tend to favor the latter - since that allows you to peruse a lot of threads and quickly decide if one is going to be worth the 15 minutes that you happen to have on hand.

    Having said that - I love your reference material - as something to save in my files for discussion of the subject - because I can go to it later as the need arises in a discussion and find a snip here or there that specifically and directly answers a point that may be brought up.