What are Progressive/Evangelical views on Des Ford Investigative Judgement Thesis

[AdamjEdgar]

Golden Alter vs. Golden Censer

Is there a Bible contradiction in Hebrews 9:3–4?

I think this adequately describes the issue.

yes and no...which one is your choice?

I had already made my choice and in reading the article you referenced, my choices are:
1. a modification #3 except i believe the veil was actually removed completely because the earthly was torn in half when Jesus died and
2. 5 The golden Censor differs from the alter (this is plainly obvious, how else would the High Priest move through the sanctuary without carrying his censor?)

If I recall correctly, Aaron put incense into his censor from the alter of incense, BEFORE entering the MHP...also remember Numbers 16 - who was it that went running through the camp with incense in his censor when the plague broke out on the Israelites?

46Moses said to Aaron, “Take your censer, place fire from the altar in it, and add incense. Go quickly to the congregation and make atonement for them, because wrath has come out from the LORD; the plague has begun.”

How could he have done this if the alter was inside the Most Holy Place. God was already angry, entering the MHP of the tabernacle under such circumstances would have meant certain death to Aaron as there was a strict process and strict time of the year when the High Priest could enter MHP. Rushing in to MHP grab the censor would not have achieved any better outcome than what happened in 2 Sam 6:6

6And when they came to Nachon’s threshing floor, Uzzah put out his hand to the ark of God and [d]took hold of it, for the oxen stumbled. 7Then the anger of the Lord was aroused against Uzzah, and God struck him there for his [e]error; and he died there by the ark of God.​

the words "it is better to obey than to sacrifice" come to mind!

 

[AdamjEdgar]

We will look at Daniel 8 next. But since Hebrews is the book that describes Jesus' ministry in the sanctuary it is strange that you want to avoid it.

And it was only considered in the first place because it was already in use in the churches and accepted. The canon formation happened much later, recognizing what was already in use.

Also, Revelation barely made the cut as well. But it was also in use and accepted, and by John.

Let me know when you are ready to look at Daniel 8.

Paul vs Peter vs Appollos...I do not think that people such as these men who were in disagreement on various matters such as day to day running of their congregations or doctrinal differences in the early Christian church means they become enemies or not support each other. The common goal at the time was to work in the face of persecution and spread the gospel. The disciples had been disgreeing with other for years...one only has to consider the favouritism conflict whilst Jesus was ministering.

I have no interest in avoiding Hebrews. Clearly you do not understand the point i made. My point was,
1. Hebrews is a very disputed part of the canon from its earliest days
2. The writer of Hebrews was highly unlikely to have been Paul
3. Hebrews has some errors regarding the layout of the sanctuary based on a well known Jewish tradition...therefore the writer of Hebrews clearly does not have a reliable grasp of history...I would not take any claims of doctrinal errors regarding the sanctuary from Hebrews where it conflicts with other bible truths (such as the timeline in Daniel 8)
4. The veil in the earthly temple was torn in half at the cross. The idea that this has zero significance to the sanctuary being visible from the Holy of Holies in Heaven is absurd!
5. The location of The Alter of Incense is best illustrated by Google (i could insert dozens more with the identical layout if you like?)

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Heb 1:3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high

The blood portion of the Day of Atonement is done. Now all those throughout the Christian era who trust in Him to the end, and afflict themselves, avail themselves of that ministration.

The sacrifice part of the Atonement absolutely is complete. However, you simply take that and paste it right on top of Daniel 8 and claim that the 2300 years IJ doctrine must be wrong!

The problem is this...Daniel 8 was written a long time before Hebrews. So either

1. the writer of Hebrews does not appear to be able to get his history correct for the layout of the tabernacle or,
2. he is in fact referring to a heavenly tabernacle where the veil has been removed mirroring the tearing of the earthly temple veil in two at the crucifixion!

One cannot argue that the 2300 day prophecy does not start in 457 B.C...there are few who now dispute this date. In light of that, there are a number of linking items between Daniel 2, 7, & 8. I have posted the image elsewhere on these forums, however, i will post it here as well for you to consider.

The Prophecy states...

14And he said to me, “For two thousand three hundred [h]days; then the sanctuary shall be cleansed.”​

Lets just jump right to verse 24 of Daniel 8. That is where the diverging probably starts. Take me through a quick summary of your understanding of verse 24
Make it short because I think I can already foresee an issue I will have within just a couple of lines you will probably write but one never knows.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

yes and no...which one is your choice?

I had already made my choice and in reading the article you referenced, my choices are:
1. a modification #3 except i believe the veil was actually removed completely because the earthly was torn in half when Jesus died and
2. 5 The golden Censor differs from the alter (this is plainly obvious, how else would the High Priest move through the sanctuary without carrying his censor?)

If I recall correctly, Aaron put incense into his censor from the alter of incense, BEFORE entering the MHP...also remember Numbers 16 - who was it that went running through the camp with incense in his censor when the plague broke out on the Israelites?

46Moses said to Aaron, “Take your censer, place fire from the altar in it, and add incense. Go quickly to the congregation and make atonement for them, because wrath has come out from the LORD; the plague has begun.”

How could he have done this if the alter was inside the Most Holy Place. God was already angry, entering the MHP of the tabernacle under such circumstances would have meant certain death to Aaron as there was a strict process and strict time of the year when the High Priest could enter MHP. Rushing in to MHP grab the censor would not have achieved any better outcome than what happened in 2 Sam 6:6

6And when they came to Nachon’s threshing floor, Uzzah put out his hand to the ark of God and [d]took hold of it, for the oxen stumbled. 7Then the anger of the Lord was aroused against Uzzah, and God struck him there for his [e]error; and he died there by the ark of God.​

the words "it is better to obey than to sacrifice" come to mind!

it does not matter which one it is at this point. it just matters that there is not a conflict as you have stated. your rejection of Hebrews is not valid, Therefore you cannot dismiss the evidence as you have tried to do.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

The sacrifice part of the Atonement absolutely is complete. However, you simply take that and paste it right on top of Daniel 8 and claim that the 2300 years IJ doctrine must be wrong!

The problem is this...Daniel 8 was written a long time before Hebrews. So either

1. the writer of Hebrews does not appear to be able to get his history correct for the layout of the tabernacle or,
2. he is in fact referring to a heavenly tabernacle where the veil has been removed mirroring the tearing of the earthly temple veil in two at the crucifixion!

One cannot argue that the 2300 day prophecy does not start in 457 B.C...there are few who now dispute this date. In light of that, there are a number of linking items between Daniel 2, 7, & 8. I have posted the image elsewhere on these forums, however, i will post it here as well for you to consider.

The Prophecy states...

14And he said to me, “For two thousand three hundred [h]days; then the sanctuary shall be cleansed.”​

Lets just jump right to verse 24 of Daniel 8. That is where the diverging probably starts. Take me through a quick summary of your understanding of verse 24
Make it short because I think I can already foresee an issue I will have within just a couple of lines you will probably write but one never knows.

this belongs in the other forum

 

[tall73]

Lets just jump right to verse 24 of Daniel 8. That is where the diverging probably starts. Take me through a quick summary of your understanding of verse 24
Make it short because I think I can already foresee an issue I will have within just a couple of lines you will probably write but one never knows.

Alright, let's start with basics. I see evening mornings as days. I am willing to look at the passage with the assumption it is talking about Rome, with Hasel's understanding of the horn coming out of the winds, based on the masculine usage.


Now, as to 1844, to get there you have to use a starting date from Daniel 9. But that is ruled out by the text.

The vision of Daniel 8 was complete, and it was sealed up. A seal was placed on something so that it was not tampered with, and to show its veracity. The vision was stated to be true, and to be sealed up for the last days.

Dan 8:26 The vision of the evenings and the mornings that has been told is true, but seal up the vision, for it refers to many days from now.”

The Adventist notion that the vision was incomplete, and the beginning date was yet to be given is incorrect. The vision was complete, was true, and was sealed up for the last days.

 

[tall73]

The problem is this...Daniel 8 was written a long time before Hebrews.

Repeating this as you don't seem to be addressing it:

Alright, let's start with basics. I see evening mornings as days. I am willing to look at the passage with the assumption it is talking about Rome.

Now, as to 1844, to get there you have to use a starting date from Daniel 9. But that is ruled out by the text.

The vision of Daniel 8 was complete, and it was sealed up. A seal was placed on something so that it was not tampered with, and to show its veracity. The vision was stated to be true, and to be sealed up for the last days.

Dan 8:26 The vision of the evenings and the mornings that has been told is true, but seal up the vision, for it refers to many days from now.”

The Adventist notion that the vision was incomplete, and the beginning date was yet to be given is incorrect. The vision was complete, was true, and was sealed up for the last days.

 

[tall73]

Golden Alter vs. Golden Censer

Is there a Bible contradiction in Hebrews 9:3–4?

I think this adequately describes the issue.

I still lean towards view 7.

Here is an Andrews University Seminary Studies treatment that mentions some of the elements I noted earlier, but also discusses the different types of incense used and the association of the incense altar with the MHP, though not being located in it.

https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1762&context=auss

 

[tall73]

@AdamjEdgar


Repeating this as you don't seem to be addressing it:

Alright, let's start with basics. I see evening mornings as days. I am willing to look at the passage with the assumption it is talking about Rome.

Now, as to 1844, to get there you have to use a starting date from Daniel 9. But that is ruled out by the text.

The vision of Daniel 8 was complete, and it was sealed up. A seal was placed on something so that it was not tampered with, and to show its veracity. The vision was stated to be true, and to be sealed up for the last days.

Dan 8:26 The vision of the evenings and the mornings that has been told is true, but seal up the vision, for it refers to many days from now.”

The Adventist notion that the vision was incomplete, and the beginning date was yet to be given is incorrect. The vision was complete, was true, and was sealed up for the last days.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

@AdamjEdgar



The vision of Daniel 8 was complete, and it was sealed up. A seal was placed on something so that it was not tampered with, and to show its veracity. The vision was stated to be true, and to be sealed up for the last days.

Dan 8:26 The vision of the evenings and the mornings that has been told is true, but seal up the vision, for it refers to many days from now.”

The Adventist notion that the vision was incomplete, and the beginning date was yet to be given is incorrect. The vision was complete, was true, and was sealed up for the last days.

this is very interesting point a good on at that.

 

[tall73]

this is very interesting point a good on at that.

Yes, like many of these things, when what it said first hit me I was pretty shocked, because I had always tied the two chapters together, on a faulty basis.

Daniel was confused by the meaning. And he was sick after. But there is no indication that the explanation was cut short because of his weakness. And this verse makes it plain that the vision explanation was complete.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

Yes, like many of these things, when what it said first hit me I was pretty shocked, because I had always tied the two chapters together, on a faulty basis.

Daniel was confused by the meaning. And he was sick after. But there is no indication that the explanation was cut short because of his weakness. And this verse makes it plain that the vision explanation was complete.

i am having trouble with the translation could you post the complete text. i seem to be missing something it says "the vision is true." not sure how that translates to complete?

 

[tall73]

i am having trouble with the translation could you post the complete text. i seem to be missing something it says "the vision is true." not sure how that translates to complete?

26 “And the vision of the evenings and mornings
Which was told is true;
Therefore seal up the vision,
For it refers to many days in the future.”

The complete aspect is the command to seal up the vision. You wouldn't seal up the vision if there were still more to relate, because sealing it up is to preserve it unchanged, or un-tampered with for a later time. For instance, if a king sent a letter and put the signet ring impression in the wax it would allow the recipient to know the letter was legitimate. In this case it is sealed up for many days in the future. If the vision explanation was yet to be completed it would not have been sealed.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

26 “And the vision of the evenings and mornings
Which was told is true;
Therefore seal up the vision,
For it refers to many days in the future.”

The complete aspect is the command to seal up the vision. You wouldn't seal up the vision if there were still more to relate, because sealing it up is to preserve it unchanged, or un-tampered with for a later time. For instance, if a king sent a letter and put the signet ring impression in the wax it would allow the recipient to know the letter was legitimate. In this case it is sealed up for many days in the future. If the vision explanation was yet to be completed it would not have been sealed.

eh???? I must be misunderstanding what you mean?

The vision was sealed up in Chapter 8...not chapter 7.

I am linking Chapter 7 & 8 using the proven historical fact that Romans made a habit of Deifying Alexandar the Great. The sealing up of the vision in Daniel 8 has nothing to do with this...it does not break the link.

The issue i have with your theory is Daniel 10 & 11. God gives Daniel another dream about the future of Medo Persia (shouldnt this have already been sealed up in Ch 8 according to your theory?)

Dan 11:1“And I, in the first year of Darius the Mede, stood up to strengthen and protect him.2Now then, I will tell you the truth: Three more kings will arise in Persia, and then a fourth, who will be far richer than all the others. By the power of his wealth, he will stir up everyone against the kingdom of Greece.
​

I think as we go through Chapter 11 it appears that Daniel is given insight into other kings (such as the future Alexandar the Great) sweeping down through the land...so if the vision from Chapter 8 was sealed up, then clearly there is a problem with your theory as these two later chapters are clearly talking about the same as chapter 8!

BTW, Daniel Chapter 10 and 11 further prove my theory about the link between chapter 7 and 8...ie God goes to great lengths to illustrate the rise of the little horn theology...phrases such as:

Daniel 11:31His forces will rise up and desecrate the temple fortress.
32With flattery he will corrupt those who violate the covenant
36Then the king will do as he pleases and will exalt and magnify himself above every god​

Then notice how Chapter 12 starts...

1“At that time Michael, the great prince who stands watch over your people, will rise up. There will be a time of distress, the likes of which will not have occurred from the beginning of nations until that time. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered.
​

Then we see God tell Daniel again to shut up the book until the end time...

Daniel 12:4But you, Daniel, shut up these words and seal the book until the time of the end. Many will roam to and fro, and knowledge will increase.”
​

Daniel is not satisfied with that statement, he wants to know when all these latest visions given to him will be fulfilled...

Dan 12:8I heard, but I did not understand. So I asked, “My lord, what will be the outcome of these things?”9“Go on your way, Daniel,” he replied, “for the words are closed up and sealed until the time of the end. 10Many will be purified, made spotless, and refined, but the wicked will continue to act wickedly. None of the wicked will understand, but the wise will understand.11And from the time the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination of desolation set up, there will be 1,290 days. 12Blessed is he who waits and reaches the end of the 1,335 days.
​

clearly not in daniels lifetime as , these visions really do concern the distant future as he wrote a few chapters earlier...it must be prophetic time because notice what the angel again says...

Daniel 12:13But as for you, go on your way until the end. You will rest, and will arise to your inheritance at the end of the days.”
​

 

[Adventist Heretic]

eh???? I must be misunderstanding what you mean?

The vision was sealed up in Chapter 8...not chapter 7

I am linking Chapter 7 & 8 using the proven historical fact that Romans made a habit of Deifying Alexander the Great. The sealing up of the vision in Daniel 8 has nothing to do with this...it does not break the link.

The belief that the Romans defied Alexander the Great, does not prove a link Daniel 8. That is like saying because the president eats Mexican food, there is a link between him and the Mexican drug cartel.

Now to the issue of Daniel 10-12 there might be a parallel passage in with Daniel 7, but that is because of it's linking to Daniel 2 not 8. Daniel 2 and 10-12 both open with defining who the players are, from there we infer an interpretation, Daniel 7 does not do that, Daniel 8 does. to try and link Daniel 7 to 8, is by assuming a link to Daniel 2 first. the link between Daniel 2 & 7 is at the heart much of the debate between Historicist, Preterist and Futurists views.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

The belief that the Romans defied Alexander the Great, does not prove a link Daniel 8. That is like saying because the president eats Mexican food, there is a link between him and the Mexican drug cartel.

sorry Icedragon, but clearly you do not understand this and are clouded by your determination that SDA is wrong, and this must be for example Antiochus...sorry but that theory is clearly wrong, he was a failure.

Daniel 8:10It grew as high as the host of heaven, and it cast down some of the host and some of the stars to the earth, and trampled them. 11It magnified itself, even to the Prince of the host; it removed His daily sacrifice and overthrew the place of His sanctuary.​

All you have to do is look at historical facts...they line up perfectly with what Daniel 8 is saying about the little horn, however, note the horn does not have eyes and ears in Daniel 8. That is significant, it does not get its eyes and ears until later in Rome!

Again, the Romans deified the methods of Alexandar the Great in the same way the Little Horn claims world dominance. The idea absolutely comes out of Greece because that is the direct link between the two dreams in chapters 7 and 8.

Some Adventists say that the link was because Alexandar must have been Roman or ruled as part of the Roman kingdom prior to his rise etc...whether or not this part is true I am not arguing. However, what I have found is consistent with exactly what Daniel's dream in Ch 8 says...When you consider that the political legitimisation came out of the Roman empire, well that is why in the other dream we see "ears and a mouth" on the little horn! (political power)

 

[Adventist Heretic]

sorry Icedragon, but clearly you do not understand this and are clouded by your determination that SDA is wrong, and this must be for example Antiochus...sorry but that theory is clearly wrong, he was a failure.

you see what you want to see. if you are afraid that you will not be able to identify Rome as the anti-Christ without this passage, let reassure, you can still get there. buy giving the keys to Peter and then showing that 666 refers to Solomon , God man on earth you can still draw that conclusion

Daniel 8:10It grew as high as the host of heaven, and it cast down some of the host and some of the stars to the earth, and trampled them. 11It magnified itself, even to the Prince of the host; it removed His daily sacrifice and overthrew the place of His sanctuary.

​

All you have to do is look at historical facts....Ok lets look at the History
1. Did Rome Grow as high as the host of heaven? NO
2. Did Rome cast down some of the host and start to the earth? NO
3. Did Rome maganifiy itself to the Prince of the Host? some say yes, other say maybe? maybe not
4. Did Rome remove the Daily Sacrifice? NO, Maybe
5. Did Rome overthrew the place of his sanctuary? Maybe. if you consider the destruction of the temple by Rome, doing that then ok.

now you have 5 things you have to look at and 2.33 of them may fit Rome. Show me from History where Rome fits the criteria.

 

[tall73]

eh???? I must be misunderstanding what you mean?

The vision was sealed up in Chapter 8...not chapter 7.

I am linking Chapter 7 & 8

Yes, you are not understanding what I am stating.

So let me ask it a different way. How do you get 457 BC out of chapter 8?

The issue i have with your theory is Daniel 10 & 11. God gives Daniel another dream about the future of Medo Persia (shouldnt this have already been sealed up in Ch 8 according to your theory?)

Dan 11:1“And I, in the first year of Darius the Mede, stood up to strengthen and protect him.2Now then, I will tell you the truth: Three more kings will arise in Persia, and then a fourth, who will be far richer than all the others. By the power of his wealth, he will stir up everyone against the kingdom of Greece.
​

I think as we go through Chapter 11 it appears that Daniel is given insight into other kings (such as the future Alexandar the Great) sweeping down through the land...so if the vision from Chapter 8 was sealed up, then clearly there is a problem with your theory as these two later chapters are clearly talking about the same as chapter 8!

It is sealed up. It says it in the text.

But you seem to be missing the point. The vision of Chapter 8 was complete. There can be new visions, but they won't be adding to the vision given there. But that is what Adventists do. They claim the vision in chapter 8 was not complete. But it was, it was true, and sealed up.

Now does Daniel understand all the implications? No, and additional visions and explanation are given.

But the vision of Daniel 8 was complete.

Daniel is not satisfied with that statement, he wants to know when all these latest visions given to him will be fulfilled...

Yes, he receives other visions. And new insights were given. But the vision in chapter 8 was not incomplete. It was true and sealed up.

Dan 12:8I heard, but I did not understand. So I asked, “My lord, what will be the outcome of these things?”9“Go on your way, Daniel,” he replied, “for the words are closed up and sealed until the time of the end. 10Many will be purified, made spotless, and refined, but the wicked will continue to act wickedly. None of the wicked will understand, but the wise will understand.11And from the time the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination of desolation set up, there will be 1,290 days. 12Blessed is he who waits and reaches the end of the 1,335 days.
​

clearly not in daniels lifetime as , these visions really do concern the distant future as he wrote a few chapters earlier...it must be prophetic time because notice what the angel again says...

Sure, it concerned the distant future.

 

[tall73]

Again, the Romans deified the methods of Alexandar the Great in the same way the Little Horn claims world dominance. The idea absolutely comes out of Greece because that is the direct link between the two dreams in chapters 7 and 8.

What Ice was noting in the other thread is that horns didn't usually represent ideas in other prophecies. They represented kings. And they were usually attached to beasts.

Some Adventists say that the link was because Alexandar must have been Roman or ruled as part of the Roman kingdom prior to his rise etc...whether or not this part is true I am not arguing.

Huh? Which Adventists say that? Alexander was from Macedonia, and his forces were Greeks. And the text indicates the he-goat represents the Greeks.

Dan 8:21 The he-goat is the King of the Greeks: and the great horn which was between his eyes, he is the first king.

However, what I have found is consistent with exactly what Daniel's dream in Ch 8 says...When you consider that the political legitimisation came out of the Roman empire, well that is why in the other dream we see "ears and a mouth" on the little horn! (political power)

Sorry, I am having trouble following that.

In any case, you might check the other thread. Bob mentioned the wind view too because it is how most Adventists reconcile the issue.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

What Ice was noting in the other thread is that horns didn't usually represent ideas in other prophecies. They represented kings. And they were usually attached to beasts.

Exactly. See here is the problem,
many conservatives put the claim out there "show me the bible text", in this case there is no bible text that can prove Antiochus Epiphanes, however, there are Bible texts that prove the Greek leader.

For me, the major issue with the Antiochus theory...where is that consistent with any other chapter in Daniel or Revelation?

Anyway, believe what you like, i have the evidence i need on this and its time to move on to more important things than argue with people about things that are obvious and consistent and fit the historical timeline as well as the prophecy.

I put this view to my dad and even he was surprised but he agreed with it without question...its a very logical and sensible view thus far. The key is absolutely in demonstrating why the little horn without eyes and ears in one vision, however it has both eyes and ears in the other...and this theory explains that very very well and history supports it perfectly!

So unless something Biblically can be produced that absolutely discounts the idea that the little horn in Daniel 7 and 8 are not the same... I have proved Ford 9 and anyone else who makes the same claim) is wrong on this, and after now reading 120 pages of his thesis, i can see quite a number of other issues that he has taken a foolish view on.

For example on Page 113 Des uses the following quote from Cottrell in regard to the 2300 prophecy in an attempt to discredit it...

The condi- tional nature of the prophecies of the Old Testament, including those of the seer in Babylon. This conditional nature means that because of Israel's failure, the prophecies will never be fulfilled in the precise way set forth, but like those of the major and minor prophets they require that reinterpre- tation which is to be found in the New Testament. (This principle applied may mean, for example, the omission of some details in later fulfillment or fulfillments—such as "two thousand three hundred evening-mornings," if we understand Cottrell right.)
​

Im sorry but that is simply a false teaching. It is an sbsurd attempt to clutch at straws, and has not a single shred of evidence in regards to the 2300 day prophecy...the question is directly asked and is directly answered. There is nothing in the passage below that gives even the slightest indication that the time period may change!

Dan 8:13 Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to him, “How long until the fulfillment of the vision of the daily sacrifice, the rebellion that causes desolation, and the surrender of the sanctuary and of the host to be trampled?”14He said to me, “It will take 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary will be properly restored.”
​

Des also makes another unsupported blanket statement on page 114 that i have to disagree with...

From Matthew to Revelation, it is taken for granted that Christ would return in the lifetime of the readers of the New Testament, and prophecy assumes a shape consistent with that expectation.​

When one reads the book of Revelation, this clearly is not possible. I think that John was quite sure that none of this would happen in his lifetime...particularly if he was to reference the book of Daniel whilst musing about his own visions. He would have very obviously seen the correlation even if he did not fully understand it. For example, John would have known about the kingdoms of Babylon, Medo Persia, Greece and obviously Rome...so in light of that, he would have known that there was still a long time to come yet, Des' statement here is just complete nonesense.

BTW, the importance of illustrating where Ford is wrong is because he uses many arguments against the investigative judgement that were also employed by quite a few other non SDA scholars and writers at the time (or prior).