The Daily--New or Old view

[tall73]

This is a poll to see who takes the new view and who takes the old view.

If you are not sure which is which then you may want to wait on the poll and go check out information on the understanding of the continual or daily in Adventist history.

Discussion is fine too.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

I don't know which is the old and which is the new. In Daniel the daily was a reference to the morning and evening sacrifices:

(Dan 8:11 NIV) It set itself up to be as great as the Prince of the host; it took away the daily sacrifice from him, and the place of his sanctuary was brought low.

In that case the old meaning is the daily is the sacrificial activities of the the sanctuary. And the new meaning would be the reinterpretation of Adventists in the IJ doctrine and then that was redefined from Christ daily ministration in heaven in the Most Holy Place. I suppose that the assumptions about this supposed activity have undergone several revisions also. I think the Poll so far is too vague.

 

[JonDavis]

I have words to speak to my brethren east and west, north
and south. I request that my writings shall not be used as the
leading argument to settle questions over which there is now so
much controversy. I entreat of Elders Haskell, Loughborough,
Smith, and others of our leading brethren, that they make no
reference to my writings to sustain their views of the "daily."
{6BIO 257.5}
It has been presented to me that this is not a subject of vital
importance. I am instructed that our brethren are making a
mistake in magnifying the importance of the difference in the
views that are held. I cannot consent that any of my writings
shall be taken as settling this matter. The true meaning of the
"daily" is not to be made a test question. {6BIO 257.6}

I now ask that my ministering brethren shall not make use of
my writings in their arguments regarding this question; for I
have had no instruction on the point under discussion, and I see
no need for the controversy. Regarding this matter under
present conditions, silence is eloquence.--MS 11, 1910 (see also
1SM, p. 164). {6BIO 258.1}

 

[Sophia7]

I'll try to clarify. The "old view" of the "daily" was the Millerite view, which can be found on the 1843 Millerite chart under the year A.D. 508:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/Millerite_1843_chart.jpg

Miller's understanding of the significance of 508 was this:

Then in the twelfth chapter of Daniel, 11th verse: “And from the time that the daily sacrifice, (meaning abomination,) shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be 1290 days.” There is some difficulty in knowing what is here intended by “daily sacrifice” in this text. It cannot mean the Jewish sacrifices, for two good reasons: -

1. It has some immediate connection with “the abomination that maketh desolate,” i.e. Papacy, or papal power of Rome, that is “taken away, to set up,” &c. Now all must admit that Jewish sacrifices were taken away about five hundred years before Papacy was set up, or exalted.

[FONT=&quot] 2. If Jewish sacrifices are here meant, then in A.D. 1360 this papal power would have ended her setting up, or exaltation. But Papacy was then at the height of its power. I have come to this conclusion: that this power, called “daily sacrifice,” is Rome pagan abomination; the same as Christ has reference to in Matt. xxiv. 15. Luke xxi. 21. Certainly Christ could not have reference to papal abomination that maketh desolate until Christ's second coming; for that was not set up until nearly five hundred years afterwards. Of course, it must have been the pagan abomination which would be taken away. . . .

[/FONT][FONT=&quot] The question then would be, when was Paganism taken out of the way? I answer, it must have been after the ten horns arose out of what is called the Western empire of Rome, which were to arise up and rule one hour,* (* Rev. xvii. 10.) (a little time,) with the beast, pagan: for this little horn was to arise or be “set up” among the ten horns. It could not be until after the year 476 after Christ, when the Western empire fell, and was divided into ten kingdoms. It could not come until “they,” the ten kings, had “polluted the sanctuary of strength,” (meaning Rome.) Dan. xi. 31: “And they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall ‘take away’ the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.” Who shall do this? I answer, the ten horns, or kings. Rev. xvii. 12, 13: “And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet, (when John saw his vision,) but receive power as kings one hour, (a short time,) with the beast.” The beast here must mean Rome pagan, for we have been told that beast means a kingdom. Daniel vii. 23: “Thus he said, the fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth.” And as papal Rome had not yet been “set up,” we must of necessity call this beast Rome pagan. . . .

[/FONT] These several marks, and combinations of events, and circumstances, in my opinion, can nowhere be fulfilled in any manner agreeing with the prophecy, except in the conversion of the pagan kings to Christianity, which happened as soon as A.D. 508; then they “must continue a short space,” Rev. xvii. 10; which is shown in Daniel to be thirty years, the difference between Dan. vii. 25 and xii. 11, the last number, 1290 years, beginning at the “taking away” Paganism, A.D. 508; the first number, 1260 years, beginning at the setting up of Papacy, A.D. 538, when the dragon gave his power, his seat and great authority, and when the ten kings gave their power and strength to Rome papal, and he exerciseth the power of the pagan beast before him. Papacy now killed heretics, as Paganism had Christians before. Then these numbers would end in the year A.D. 1798, allowing a day for a year. . . .

And now it remains to show the end, by Dan. xii. 11, 12. “And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be 1290 days.” Paganism taken away A.D. 508; add 1290, makes 1798. “Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the 1335 days: but go thou thy way until the end be, for thou shalt rest and stand in thy lot at the end of the days.”

When will the end of these days be? you may inquire. I answer, 1335 years from taking away the first abomination of the Roman kingdom, A.D. 508, to which add 1335 and it makes A.D. 1843, when Daniel will stand in his lot, and all who have waited for the Lord will be blessed. (William Miller, Views of the Prophecies and Prophetic Chronology, available for download here)
​

Ellen White's view in 1850 was this:

The Lord showed me that the 1843 chart was directed by his hand, and that no part of it should be altered; that the figures were as he wanted them. That his hand was over and hid a mistake in some of the figures, so that none could see it, until his hand was removed. {Present Truth, November 1850, par. 10}

Then I saw in relation to the "Daily," that the word "sacrifice" was supplied by man's wisdom, and does not belong to the text; and that the Lord gave the correct view of it to those who gave the judgment hour cry. When union existed, before 1844, nearly all were united on the correct view of the "Daily;" but since 1844, in the confusion, other views have been embraced, and darkness and confusion has followed. {Present Truth, November 1850, par. 11}

The Lord showed me that Time had not been a test since 1844, and that time will never again be a test. {Present Truth, November 1850, par. 12}
​

The "new view" came in after 1844 and held "that it was the heavenly ministry of the Heavenly High Priest, Christ, that was being obscured by the little horn power through obscuring the truth of offered forgiveness" (tall73 in this post). Today, the majority of Adventists believe in the "new view" even though it contradicts what EGW said she had seen, which was that the Lord had given the correct view to the Millerites before 1844.

 

[Sophia7]

I have words to speak to my brethren east and west, north
and south. I request that my writings shall not be used as the
leading argument to settle questions over which there is now so
much controversy. I entreat of Elders Haskell, Loughborough,
Smith, and others of our leading brethren, that they make no
reference to my writings to sustain their views of the "daily."
{6BIO 257.5}
It has been presented to me that this is not a subject of vital
importance. I am instructed that our brethren are making a
mistake in magnifying the importance of the difference in the
views that are held. I cannot consent that any of my writings
shall be taken as settling this matter. The true meaning of the
"daily" is not to be made a test question. {6BIO 257.6}

I now ask that my ministering brethren shall not make use of
my writings in their arguments regarding this question; for I
have had no instruction on the point under discussion, and I see
no need for the controversy. Regarding this matter under
present conditions, silence is eloquence.--MS 11, 1910 (see also
1SM, p. 164). {6BIO 258.1}

These statements in regard to the later controversy over the meaning of the "daily" contradict her 1850 statement, which said that God had shown her that the old view was correct.

 

[tall73]

I now ask that my ministering brethren shall not make use of
my writings in their arguments regarding this question; for I
have had no instruction on the point under discussion, and I see
no need for the controversy. Regarding this matter under
present conditions, silence is eloquence.--MS 11, 1910 (see also
1SM, p. 164). {6BIO 258.1}

The Lord showed me that the 1843 chart was directed by his hand, and that no part of it should be altered; that the figures were as he wanted them. That his hand was over and hid a mistake in some of the figures, so that none could see it, until his hand was removed.

Then I saw in relation to the "Daily," that the word "sacrifice" was supplied by man's wisdom, and does not belong to the text; and that the Lord gave the correct view of it to those who gave the judgment hour cry. When union existed, before 1844, nearly all were united on the correct view of the "Daily;" but since 1844, in the confusion, other views have been embraced, and darkness and confusion has followed. { Present Truth November , 1850 } http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/PT-AR/PT-AR-Part1-11/index.djvu



I would say it is pretty obvious why there was a controversy. She said she had no instruction on the point. Does that in fact make sense when looking at her comment from 1850?

- EGW, source of continuing authority says she saw that the old view was the right one
- People start using the comment to solve the controversy
- EGW, source of continuing authority says that she never had any instruction on the matter and doesn't know why folks are worked up over it.

Question--if she did not have any previous instruction on the subject then why would she say to not use her writings to solve it? They couldn't use her writings to solve it if in fact she had not previously taken a position.


Now there is one other alternative. That EGW wrote that very emphatic statement, but was not actually shown by the Lord any of it. In that case, how often do we apply that rule to all her writings?

But it is clear she claimed that she saw this in vision:
This was the opening statement of her article

DEAR BRETHREN AND SISTEP.--I .wish "to give you a
short sketch of what the Lord has recently shown :to
me in vision...

She says "I saw" right at the introduction to the thought.

The two paragraphs right around that say the Lord showed her, and the thought is continued throughout the article as she relates the vision.


But apart from that, what view do you take?

 

[JonDavis]

Isnt the daily the Sabbath?
Then the Papacy changed the Sabbath to Sunday.

And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered

So it would not be till around 1844 that we are given light again that we are to keep the Sabbath or Saturday.

Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?

So how long was the question, that the Sabbath would be trodden on?

And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.

Then the answer gives the time when Jesus enters the Most Holy and light on keeping the Sabbath.

 

[tall73]

Isnt the daily the Sabbath?

No.


She references the daily being proclaimed during the Millerite movement. The daily was, according to Miller, dealing with paganism.

And in 1844 those who would become the Advent band were not keeping the Sabbath.

At first I moved out timidly in the work of public speaking. If I had confidence, it was given me by the Holy Spirit. If I spoke with freedom and power, it was given me of God. Our meetings were usually conducted in such a manner that both of us took part. My husband would give a doctrinal discourse, then I would follow with an exhortation of considerable length, melting my way into the feelings of the congregation. Thus my husband sowed and I watered the seed of truth, and God did give the increase. In the autumn of 1846 we began to observe the Bible Sabbath, and to teach and defend it. {1T 75}

Bates did not accept the Sabbath until 1845, and he shared it with the Whites through his pamphlet.


The new view of the daily is that it refers to Christ's priestly ministry in the heavenly sanctuary...His "continual" sacrifice.

 

[JonDavis]

Both Millers idea and the Sabbath one are very close, for sunday is Pegan.
The 2300 days answer given is directed toward the Sanctuary in Heaven but that is amazing how close the Sabbath truth was revealed again at just about the same time, in answer to the question.

 

[tall73]

Both Millers idea and the Sabbath one are very close, for sunday is Pegan.
The 2300 days answer given is directed toward the Sanctuary in Heaven but that is amazing how close the Sabbath truth was revealed again at just about the same time, in answer to the question.

No they are not. Read again this post which details Miller's view that it was in 508 that the daily was taken away:

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=35143931&postcount=4

Moreover, you neglected the fact that it was not in 1844 but later that the Sabbath truth was given.

Therefore if it was not until after 1844 it cannot be the same daily that Miller preached before 1844. And in fact Miller's own words show that it is not.

 

[Your Neighbor]

THE DAILY-THE PIONEER VIEW

http://temcat.com/daily.htm

http://www.hopeint.org/pdf-ourfirmfoundation/OFF2204w.pdf

 

[tall73]

THE DAILY-THE PIONEER VIEW

http://temcat.com/daily.htm

http://www.hopeint.org/pdf-ourfirmfoundation/OFF2204w.pdf

That is in fact a great article on the history of the question, regarding the development, Conradi's involvement ,etc. Now of course they spin it to make Conradi, Prescott, etc. in league with the devil. But the general history is accurate.

However, note that when they get down to this phrase they do not quote her statement:

[FONT=&quot]So for many, many years before Manuscript releases come out there’s no concrete testimony to refute Daniells’ position but when it comes out it totally upholds F.C. Gilbert’s position and yet today, we’re not seeing our leaders refute this, because in the controversy that raged about the ‘Daily’ from 1900-1915, Sister White was basically taking the position ‘let’s just keep quiet on this.’

[/FONT]It is partly true that she was downplaying the issue, and saying that her writings should not be used to solve it. But note what else she said, as quoted in context above:

for I have had no instruction on the point under discussion, and I see no need for the controversy
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]Now that creates a little problem for your article's view. Did she or did she not have instruction on the point of what the daily was?

It is quite clear she did! Your article is right in that point. But then why did she say otherwise?

And why say that her writings were not to be used to settle questions if she claimed she had no instruction to start with?

Further, notice this quote from the death bed interview that your article cites:

[FONT=&quot]We are to have nothing to do with this subject of the 'daily' ...I knew they would work against my message, and then the people would not think there was anything to my message. I have written to him and told him that he was showing himself not fit to be president of the General Conference. ..not the man to keep the Presidency.


[/FONT]Ie, don't let them talk about the daily or I will be discredited. No wonder she didn't make it a testing truth.




[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

[JonDavis]

I'll read up on it later.
All I can say for now is that it truely amazes me how the question was answered.

From the looks of it William Millar applied this to Rome, maybe not in the way of the Sabbath but how could he have known the Sabbath truth would of been given light at that time.

Not only did Jesus enter the Most Holy place as seen by Ellen White but the Sabbath truth was given to Joseph Bates who accepted the truth in 1845. When was this revealed to him? 1844 maybe?

Simply Amazing that two questions was answered in one breath thousands of years before it happened.

 

[tall73]

I'll read up on it later.
All I can say for now is that it truely amazes me how the question was answered.

From the looks of it William Millar applied this to Rome, maybe not in the way of the Sabbath but how could he have known the Sabbath truth would of been given light at that time.

Not only did Jesus enter the Most Holy place as seen by Ellen White but the Sabbath truth was given to Joseph Bates who accepted the truth in 1845. When was this revealed to him? 1844 maybe?

Simply Amazing that two questions was answered in one breath thousands of years before it happened.

Nope, it appears Bates accepted it from an article written by an Adventist minister in 45.

 

[tall73]

Another quote from the article[FONT=&quot]

She’s rebuking them for not just going to work and giving the message in the cities; what all they want to do is go back in and straighten out the pioneer writings which Sister White had confidence in.

[/FONT]The irony is that the estate, along with Willie and Mrs. White, asked Prescott to look over some of the facts in her own GC volume at the time of revision. Now she is telling him not to do it here because it would confuse people. It would certainly confuse people who knew what she said before and now the position was changed. So instead she says she had no instruction and not to talk about it.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

From the looks of it William Millar applied this to Rome, maybe not in the way of the Sabbath but how could he have known the Sabbath truth would of been given light at that time.

Not only did Jesus enter the Most Holy place as seen by Ellen White but the Sabbath truth was given to Joseph Bates who accepted the truth in 1845. When was this revealed to him? 1844 maybe?

Simply Amazing that two questions was answered in one breath thousands of years before it happened.

That may of been the start for some of the Adventists (Millerites) but the idea of the seventh day sabbath had been around in America since the late 1600's.

From our first church in America, founded in Newport, Rhode Island, in 1671, until today, Seventh Day Baptists have been a Christ-centered, Bible believing people with traditional family values.http://www.seventhdaybaptist.org/7db/Default_EN.asp

 

[tall73]

That may of been the start for some of the Adventists (Millerites) but the idea of the seventh day sabbath had been around in America since the late 1600's.

Yeah, I think it is generally recognized that the 7th day Baptists passed it on to others who passed it on to Bates.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

About the poll what if my answer is neither view is correct. Miller's view is based upon certain assumptions which don't really work and the same is true of the so called new view. Why don't we get a spot in the Poll?

 

[tall73]

Oh alright, I will see if I can edit it.

 

[tall73]

Nope, I can't...a mod would have to do it.