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

[tall73]

Des Ford laid the following claim in his own sabatical paper...

19th Century Position
The doctrine of the investigative judgment was discovered just after the great disappointment in 1844 by Edson and others.

20th Century Position
The doctrine of the investigative judgment was not part of the general beliefs of the SDA church until about fifteen years after the 1844 crisis.​

Now here is the problem with the above claims by Ford in that 900 page document...he is mixing truth with error...(note the date on the article below and see the pdf attached)

THE DAY-STAR EXTRA Saturday, February 7, 1846. The Sanctuary by O. R. L. Crozier * * * * * Part One of Four THE LAW OF MOSES

THE MEMORIAL OF TRUMPETS. Trumpets were blown, and burnt offerings, and sin offerings offered on the first day of every month in the year; Numbers 28:11-15; but the first day of the 7th month was one of special importance, on which was "an holy convocation", "no servile work" was done, they afflicted their souls, and offered an offering made by fire unto the Lord; and kept the day as a Sabbath; Numbers 29:1-6. Leviticus 23:23,25. Their time being lunar, watchmen were stationed on the hills to watch the appearance of the moon. The first who saw it blew his trumpet, and the rest heard and swelled its sound till the hills of Judea resounded with peals of trumpets. In this way the approach of the great day of Atonement was announced. The fulfilment of this memorial of blowing trumpets must be the proclamation of the coming of the anti-typical day of atonement, which is the dispensation of the fulness of times. The object in either case was to make ready for the atonement. This was the office of the Advent movement (or Elias) up the tenth day of the seventh month 1844. The 2300 days ending on that day, the Bridegroom came to the marriage and began the cleansing of the sanctuary which is the first event in the day of atonement. ​

After reading through some of this article, I feel that it was the position of the Millerites long before the SDA church even formed, 1844 was a day of significance and the cleansing of the Heavenly Sanctuary was the focus of that study by Crosier and Hiram Edson and others.

I quoted for you on the first page that James White, years after, was not accepting the IJ yet.

Yes, Crosier etc. fleshed out Edson's vision of Jesus entering for the first time into the most holy place in heaven, and they associated this with the day of atonement type.

But that is not the same as the investigative judgment. They initially expected Jesus' stay in the most holy to be brief. But the IJ was a later idea of Jesus going through the books, which explained the delay.

This notion of going through the books was not stated by Crosier or Edson. They would not have associated the cleansing on the Day of Atonement with judgment on individual cases, because that is not what the high priest did when entering the sanctuary on the day of atonement for the cleansing application of blood. Here is the description of the activity of the high priest:

Lev 16:15 “Then he shall kill the goat of the sin offering that is for the people and bring its blood inside the veil and do with its blood as he did with the blood of the bull, sprinkling it over the mercy seat and in front of the mercy seat.
Lev 16:16 Thus he shall make atonement for the Holy Place, because of the uncleannesses of the people of Israel and because of their transgressions, all their sins. And so he shall do for the tent of meeting, which dwells with them in the midst of their uncleannesses.


In fact, that is one of the big problems. The Day of Atonement is a picture of cleansing application of blood. It is a corporate provision, representing the blood of Christ applied for th sins of the whole cam, the sanctuary, etc..

The high priest in the sanctuary cleansed with blood. It was not until after the high priest left the sanctuary that any of the provisions about those not afflicting themselves would be cut off.

Adventists have changed the type. Instead of a provision of blood for the sins of the camp, Adventists have posited that the high priest is reviewing individual cases from books. But as can be seen above, it was not books that were pictured, but an application of cleansing blood.

We know the SDA church was formed in 1860's, therefore Des Fords statement above was an intentional attempt to mislead those who may not have been as well versed as himself in historical writings of the church (besides E.G Whites writings)

Unless your concern is just that the SDA church didn't exist as a legal entity yet, I am not sure your point. Those who formed the church were still gathering together prior to incorporation. And they were developing doctrine. And it is true they did not as a group adhere to the IJ doctrine early on. Some came to accept it earlier than others, and James White references some proposing it in the statement I posted earlier, but he did not yet see it as accurate in 1847

James White's and Joseph Bates' writings in book: 'A Word to the Little Flock'

It is not necessary that the final sentence should be given before the first resurrection, as some have taught; for the names of the saints are written in heaven, and Jesus, and the angels will certainly know who to raise, and gather to the New Jerusalem.

Those who were reading Ford's book were theologians and leaders in the church, and would not be ignorant of all the issues. They were also given other presentations to read for the meeting. Some of the administrators may or may not have been aware that it took some years after 1844 for all to settle on the investigative judgment aspect.

After looking at some of this, it now appears to me that Des Ford had no option but to direct further academic efforts towards discrediting E.G White.

We know obviously that she had extensive writings, I feel that Des believed the main hurdle to his doctrine on the Sanctuary was E.G White.

This meant that by also furthering his second view (that she was not a prophet inspired by God) he could then lower her writings to a position of less than his own. The simplest way to do this was thus claiming she was a pastor but not a prophet. This would then reduce any esteemed view of her writings and herself, as she was not an academic or PhD theologian as Ford was, such that his own errant teachings would gain credibility and outweigh hers!

Or, he thought that the Scriptures, not Ellen White, should determine doctrine--what the fundamentals just approved then said.

Dont get me wrong, we know as a matter of fact that Des Ford used Ellen White's writings extensively throughout his career, however, I think if I were to investigate it closely, probably not in reference to her support of the existing IJ doctrine! (which she absolutely did support IJ)

You would be surprised. I dont' think he actually objected to Ellen White, but objected to her being used as an inspired commentary on Scripture, which is what they asked him to consider in the article cited earlier in the Glacier View materials.

My dad thinks that one of Des mistakes in his Sanctuary doctrine is that he ignores the wave offering! I wonder if anyone has any further information on this?

You will have to elaborate on how you see that playing out.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

After reading through some of this article, I feel that it was the position of the Millerites long before the SDA church even formed, 1844 was a day of significance and the cleansing of the Heavenly Sanctuary was the focus of that study by Crosier and Hiram Edson and others.

It is clear from the church membership complaints, and the concerns of the church hierarchy in Australia and the US, regarding Des Fords view on this doctrine that his claim in the 900 pages report, that the 20th Century view was different from that of the 19th, is absolutely false and was inserted intentionally to mislead and create doubt about the authenticity of the origins of the belief.

We know the SDA church was formed in 1860's, therefore Des Fords statement above was an intentional attempt to mislead those who may not have been as well versed as himself in historical writings of the church (besides E.G Whites writings)

I am not sure what you are contending here? could you clarify? the church corporation was formed in the 1860's as a response to the US civil war. the doctrines were developed prior to this. In fact in 1856 the was a bible conference in Marion Iowa that was held in order to settle the issues of weather the doctrines we of the Scripture or of Ellen White. It was an issue back then. out of the conference the Chruch of God (seventh-day) was formed. It was as a result of these meeting that the issue of EGW's authority was questioned and settled, because they were being urged to accept EGW as "the voice of God on earth" and James white as a latter day Moses. This conference settled most of the doctrinal questions of the Sabbatarian Adventist and would remain largely unchallenged until 1888 when EGW did an about face on the doctrine of salvation and how to be reconciled to God, changing her view in which she said God had shown her in a vision the right answer to the new teaching of Jones and Waggoner. Uriah Smith an G.I. Butler said EGW was shown by God that the view the Smith & Butler had been teaching for 30+ years was endorsed by God through EGW and to change the view was to have God change his mind on salvation. This was impossible. If what Jones and Waggoner were now preaching were true it would mean EGW was not a prophet and that could not be the case. Uriah Smith had made his reputation in the church endorsing EGW and could not accept the fact that he was wrong. The chruch's solution was to scatter the particpants all over the Globe, Smith was sent to the middle east, Waggoner to England, White was sent to Austrilia and Jones was given free regin over the Review & Hearld. This event produced DM canwright
the largest critic of the SDA church until the 1980's

The Marion Incident
VI. The Church of God in Marion, Iowa
W. W. Prescott: Forgotten Giant of Adventism's Second Generation pg. 83

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Tall73, I am wondering if you red the article written by Crosier i posted in last thread. It is a document fundamental to the entire 1844 event and immediately thereafter. It is a published document that proves that the doctrine was not borne of the Whites.

It is not really a surprise, E.G White got the Sabbath doctrine from a Seventh Day Baptist, does this therefore mean our Sabbath doctrine should be thrown out as well? I think not!

It is clear that the sanctuary investigative judgment doctrine was already well underway long before the 1860's...Hiram Edson clearly had this doctrine made known to him and that predates the 15 year period of Des Ford's claims in his paper. This is but one of the errors i am supposing was pointed out to him by church historians within his group of mentors, without having completed my reading of Des paper, I am not sure if he offers an explanation of its existence in his paper or not.

The fact remains, the Sanctuary Doctrine was not first given to the Whites...they have openly admitted this themselves and history shows that. I do not recall Des Ford making the claim in his paper, "the Whites decided to take the doctrine 15 years later".

The reason why i offered the wave offering question...it is a known error in Des Fords doctrine...I am keen for any of those who have more information than me to present his arguments that explain this part of the sanctuary service because without it, the service is incomplete. I think that would leave his doctrine incomplete unless he has an answer.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

Tall73, I am wondering if you red the article written by Crosier i posted in last thread. It is a document fundamental to the entire 1844 event and immediately thereafter. It is a published document that proves that the doctrine was not borne of the Whites.

It is not really a surprise, E.G White got the Sabbath doctrine from a Seventh Day Baptist, does this therefore mean our Sabbath doctrine should be thrown out as well? I think not!

It is clear that the sanctuary investigative judgment doctrine was already well underway long before the 1860's...Hiram Edson clearly had this doctrine made known to him and that predates the 15 year period of Des Ford's claims in his paper. This is but one of the errors i am supposing was pointed out to him by church historians within his group of mentors, without having completed my reading of Des paper, I am not sure if he offers an explanation of its existence in his paper or not.

The fact remains, the Sanctuary Doctrine was not first given to the Whites...they have openly admitted this themselves and history shows that. I do not recall Des Ford making the claim in his paper, "the Whites decided to take the doctrine 15 years later".

The reason why i offered the wave offering question...it is a known error in Des Fords doctrine...I am keen for any of those who have more information than me to present his arguments that explain this part of the sanctuary service because without it, the service is incomplete. I think that would leave his doctrine incomplete unless he has an answer.

NO Doctrines where written by EGW or James White for that matter and as such should not be subject to the Whites for interpretation. If the doctrine is correct it is because it was studies out correctly, If it is incorrect then it is the error of the men who studied it out. All EGW does is come in and endorse a particular doctrine she and James favors and then endorses it with an vision "testimony" from God, thus locking into place any error that these men have made. one cannot change the doctrine with out questioning the prophetic authority of Ellen White. That is the main problem with the doctrine and why we taken a different approach as Evangelicals. We are not locked into EGW's endorsement.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

The Marion Incident
VI. The Church of God in Marion, Iowa
W. W. Prescott: Forgotten Giant of Adventism's Second Generation pg. 83

i wonder who wrote that article...was it the same followers of the snook who did the following...

On July 2, Snook admitted before the crowd at the conference that he had rebelled against the Battle Creek office and the Whites and that in so doing he had been serving Satan's purposes. Later both Snook and Brinkerhoff gave written confessions, which were printed in the Review, Volume XXVI, Number 8. Snook said he was "led by the wicked one," and Brinkerhoff said, "I have been deeply under the influence of Satan, and . . . have done you [Elder White] a great wrong, and wounded the cause of God."

Snook had drawn his quarterly salary in advance and had spent at least half of it at home instead of working for the cause.​

So are we to believe the liar and steeling elder and his side kick, or the Whites and the subsequent SDA church? I know where i would turn...it would not be to snooks side. I am deeply suspicious of this publication...something tells me that in reading between the lines it is not all that it pretends to be.

Seventh-Day Adventist historian Loughborough had stated that opposers to Ellen G. White's visions came from "those who have been reproved for defects in character, for wrong habits, or for some wrong course in their manner of life." And being thus reproved, the opposers maintained that they were not as bad as the "testimony" stated and broke off from the main body of Sabbath-keepers.37
​

and in relation to bearing arms...i find this history contains two conflicting statements...

Due to the Church of God petition, a law was enacted exempting non-combatants from bearing arms. Carver termed the non-action of the Battle Creek Seventh-Day Adventists as "cowardly."

However, Uriah Smith reported that the Seventh-Day Adventist General Conference did indirectly exempt Seventh-Day Adventists by petitioning the government to exempt them through an already existing law.
​

Might i also add a bit of further information...the COG fractured further in recent times and there are two different groups i believe, the Sabbath keeping group and the Sunday keeping group. It is an institution that has a very fractured past but I am told by my father that our church (the SDA's) have never been part of that organisation or vice versa! I would be interested in seeing any genuine documentation that says different as I also do not recall having ever heard of this in my own academic studies of SDA church history at Avondale when i completed my own degree there...perhaps my memory is bad?

 

[Adventist Heretic]

i wonder who wrote that article...was it the same followers of the snook who did the following...

On July 2, Snook admitted before the crowd at the conference that he had rebelled against the Battle Creek office and the Whites and that in so doing he had been serving Satan's purposes. Later both Snook and Brinkerhoff gave written confessions, which were printed in the Review, Volume XXVI, Number 8. Snook said he was "led by the wicked one," and Brinkerhoff said, "I have been deeply under the influence of Satan, and . . . have done you [Elder White] a great wrong, and wounded the cause of God."

Snook had drawn his quarterly salary in advance and had spent at least half of it at home instead of working for the cause.​

So are we to believe the liar and steeling elder and his side kick, or the Whites and the subsequent SDA church? I know where i would turn...it would not be to snooks side. I am deeply suspicious of this publication...something tells me that in reading between the lines it is not all that it pretends to be.

Seventh-Day Adventist historian Loughborough had stated that opposers to Ellen G. White's visions came from "those who have been reproved for defects in character, for wrong habits, or for some wrong course in their manner of life." And being thus reproved, the opposers maintained that they were not as bad as the "testimony" stated and broke off from the main body of Sabbath-keepers.37
​

and in relation to bearing arms...i find this history contains two conflicting statements...

Due to the Church of God petition, a law was enacted exempting non-combatants from bearing arms. Carver termed the non-action of the Battle Creek Seventh-Day Adventists as "cowardly."

However, Uriah Smith reported that the Seventh-Day Adventist General Conference did indirectly exempt Seventh-Day Adventists by petitioning the government to exempt them through an already existing law.
​

Might i also add a bit of further information...the COG fractured further in recent times and there are two different groups i believe, the Sabbath keeping group and the Sunday keeping group. It is an institution that has a very fractured past but I am told by my father that our church (the SDA's) have never been part of that organisation or vice versa! I would be interested in seeing any genuine documentation that says different as I also do not recall having ever heard of this in my own academic studies of SDA church history at Avondale when i completed my own degree there...perhaps my memory is bad?

1. Notice: this is taken out of context. This is a charge that is being leveled against them, in next paragraph they deny these claims. "And being thus reproved, the opposers maintained that they were not as bad as the "testimony" stated and broke off from the main body of Sabbath-keepers.37

Carver maintained that this was not the case with him. He had never used tobacco, had entirely discarded the use of pork, and was never reproved in any way by Ellen G. White, by a vision or otherwise. He long enjoyed the full confidence of both the Whites, and only by an accumulation of evidence was Carver forced to give up hope that the visions would be vindicated, and to have his confidence shaken as to the Christian integrity of the Whites.

2. Notice: This is taken out of context. they were promised that they would examine the claims of EGW if they confessed to wrong doing. this is hardly a case for rebellion. This look like a person trying to stay in the organization who is trying to reconcile the data, an the circumstances and is operating in good faith only to be shafted again. the fact that they took pay and did not work as intended can be explained by the fact that they were having doubhts about the visions of EGW. being compelled to support her authority while having questions of said authority would be a reason to not engage in the work as intended.

On July 2, Snook admitted before the crowd at the conference that he had rebelled against the Battle Creek office and the Whites and that in so doing he had been serving Satan's purposes. Later both Snook and Brinkerhoff gave written confessions, which were printed in the Review, Volume XXVI, Number 8. Snook said he was "led by the wicked one," and Brinkerhoff said, "I have been deeply under the influence of Satan, and . . . have done you [Elder White] a great wrong, and wounded the cause of God."

Snook had drawn his quarterly salary in advance and had spent at least half of it

3. Notice: Every time a critic complains about EGW authority, Or James White or the Doctrines, they are labled as having a character defect. This happened to Snook and Brinkhoff, D.M. Canwright, A.J. Jones, J.H. Kellogg, Desmond Ford. do you see the pattern. It was not because they thought EGW was a fraud or the doctrines were wrong, it was because they were bad. notice how convenient for EGW.

4. Notice how S&B are discouraged at the same time Loughbrough is discouraged in the same area and EGW get a revelation on the Rebellion of S&B. Hum could there be a connection?

 

[tall73]

Tall73, I am wondering if you red the article written by Crosier i posted in last thread.It is a document fundamental to the entire 1844 event and immediately thereafter. It is a published document that proves that the doctrine was not borne of the Whites.

Sure I have. And no one claimed the Whites invented the doctrine. In fact, I just showed you twice a statement by James that acknowledged some by 1847 had begun suggesting a review of cases prior to the second coming, but he did not accept it.

But you are confusing Edson and Crosier with the IJ. They did not come up with the IJ. Edson realized that the sanctuary was the heavenly one, and indicated for the first time Jesus went into the MHP.

The article of Crozier, etc. looked at implications for that regarding the Day of Atonement, etc.

But the reason I pointed you towards James' White's statement is to note that there was not wide consensus on the IJ in 1847. But in that same publication, A Word to the Little Flock in which White reproduced some material published in one of Crosier's papers, was also included comments from Ellen White which endorsed Crosier's article on the sanctuary.

James White published his statement that there is no need for a pre-advent judgment along with that endorsement of Crosier's article because Crosier's article doesn't spell out the pre-advent, investigative judgment.

Crosier looked at the OT types. And the IJ is a development and later interpretation of those.

It is clear that the sanctuary investigative judgment doctrine was already well underway long before the 1860's...Hiram Edson clearly had this doctrine made known to him

No, he didn't. He indicated Jesus' entry into the MHP, etc. they are distinct thoughts.

The reason why i offered the wave offering question...it is a known error in Des Fords doctrine...I am keen for any of those who have more information than me to present his arguments that explain this part of the sanctuary service because without it, the service is incomplete. I think that would leave his doctrine incomplete unless he has an answer.

It may be time for you to ask your father to sign on here and discuss, because you have not been able to spell out what he means here. What is the issue according to your dad?

 

[Adventist Heretic]

Sure I have. And no one claimed the Whites invented the doctrine. In fact, I just showed you twice a statement by James that acknowledged some by 1847 had begun suggesting a review of cases prior to the second coming, but he did not accept it.

But you are confusing Edson and Crosier with the IJ. They did not come up with the IJ. Edson realized that the sanctuary was the heavenly one, and indicated for the first time Jesus went into the MHP.

The article of Crozier, etc. looked at implications for that regarding the Day of Atonement, etc.

But the reason I pointed you towards James' White's statement is to note that there was not wide consensus on the IJ in 1847. But in that same publication, A Word to the Little Flock in which White reproduced some material published in one of Crosier's papers, was also included comments from Ellen White which endorsed Crosier's article on the sanctuary.

James White published his statement that there is no need for a pre-advent judgment along with that endorsement of Crosier's article because Crosier's article doesn't spell out the pre-advent, investigative judgment.

Crosier looked at the OT types. And the IJ is a development and later interpretation of those.



No, he didn't. He indicated Jesus' entry into the MHP, etc. they are distinct thoughts.




It may be time for you to ask your father to sign on here and discuss, because you have not been able to spell out what he means here. What is the issue according to your dad?

Tall some where in Indiana state archives there is the Crosier papers and autobiography. if you are ever in that area you might try to get it, for it gives a detailed account of renouncing of the sanctuary doctrine that he wrote. I tried to get it 13 years ago but with no luck. maybe you might have better luck. It would be good to have and post it on line for all to enjoy.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

The wave sheaf is part of the first fruits, which was a symbol of the resurrection, Of Christ and of those who were raised in Matthew 27:51-53 At that moment the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth quaked and the rocks were split. 52 The tombs broke open, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised. 53 After Jesus’ resurrection, when they had come out of the tombs, they entered the holy city and appeared to many people.… "

 

[Adventist Heretic]

​

Might i also add a bit of further information...the COG fractured further in recent times and there are two different groups i believe, the Sabbath keeping group and the Sunday keeping group. It is an institution that has a very fractured past but I am told by my father that our church (the SDA's) have never been part of that organisation or vice versa! I would be interested in seeing any genuine documentation that says different as I also do not recall having ever heard of this in my own academic studies of SDA church history at Avondale when i completed my own degree there...perhaps my memory is bad?

try a source other then your father, like wikipedia ,for a short explination. the COG7th Day are those sabbatarian adventists that rejected EGW. wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_God_(Seventh-Day)

head quarters are on Stanberry MO, not to far from Kansas City.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

O.R.L. Crhttp://www.truthorfables.com/Crosier_Renounces_Shut_Door.htmoiser renounces the sanctuary

Ellen white and the shut door.
Crosier letter to Canright 1848

 

[AdamjEdgar]

But you are confusing Edson and Crosier with the IJ. They did not come up with the IJ. Edson realized that the sanctuary was the heavenly one, and indicated for the first time Jesus went into the MHP.

The article of Crozier, etc. looked at implications for that regarding the Day of Atonement, etc.

I disagree, I think it is abundantly obvious that the article by Crosier is absolutely about the heavenly Sanctuary (of which the IJ is part of that service) however, since you are the pastor here...perhaps you might enlighten us of your take on the 2300 day/year prophecy:

1. exactly what you believe is the timeline forward from 457 B.C to 1844 (2300 days/years) prophecy (because it lines up almost perfectly with Jesus birth, ministry, death, and stoning of Stephen...so I do not think it a stretch to obtain 1844 date)

2. What do you say happened in or around 1844 in fulfillment of the 2300 day prophecy?

EDIT...should you wish to discuss this with my dad (as it appears you do), then sure that can be arranged. Message me privately and i will give you his details.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

I disagree, I think it is abundantly obvious that the article by Crosier is absolutely about the heavenly Sanctuary (of which the IJ is part of that service) however, since you are the pastor here...perhaps you might enlighten us of your take on the 2300 day/year prophecy:

1. exactly what you believe is the timeline forward from 457 B.C to 1844 (2300 days/years) prophecy (because it lines up almost perfectly with Jesus birth, ministry, death, and stoning of Stephen...so I do not think it a stretch to obtain 1844 date)

2. What do you say happened in or around 1844 in fulfillment of the 2300 day prophecy?

EDIT...should you wish to discuss this with my dad (as it appears you do), then sure that can be arranged. Message me privately and i will give you his details.

There was no fulfillment of the 2300 days in 1844, that is flawed interpretation. It is base on the misapplication of the day-year principle in Daniel 8 and Daniel 9 and the false assumption that there is a link between Daniel 8 & 9, there is not. Daniel 8 use evenings & mornings, as found in Genesis 1 and Daniel 9 uses the Sabbath year of Lev. 25:1-7. SDA try to link these 2 together and say they are interchangable but they are not. The 2300 days would have to be divisible by 7, the number of days in a week. if they were interchangable the 2300 days would divide evenly by 7 but it does not. The number is 328.571428571 not 328 or 329.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

Undoing 1844 made simple
Undoing 1844 Made Simple - Israel & The Church in the Last Days

 

[AdamjEdgar]

There was no fulfillment of the 2300 days in 1844, that is flawed interpretation. It is base on the misapplication of the day-year principle in Daniel 8 and Daniel 9 and the false assumption that there is a link between Daniel 8 & 9, there is not. Daniel 8 use evenings & mornings, as found in Genesis 1 and Daniel 9 uses the Sabbath year of Lev. 25:1-7. SDA try to link these 2 together and say they are interchangable but they are not. The 2300 days would have to be divisible by 7, the number of days in a week. if they were interchangable the 2300 days would divide evenly by 7 but it does not. The number is 328.571428571 not 328 or 329.

ok so how then, did the maggi manage to convince King Herod that the prophecy in Daniel and other places in the OT referred to the messiah who was to be born at exactly that time? Clearly Herod, after consulting with the relevant experts around him at the time realised that the prophecy had enough merit to decide to kill thousands of firstborn male children under the age of 2! So if the principle works accurately in predicting Jesus birth, ministry and death...(am i missing something here?)

also, your calculation is flawed...the jews used parts of days (eg Jesus statement to Jews "destroy this temple and in 3 days i will raise it again"...he was not in the grave for 3 full days)

 

[Adventist Heretic]

ok so how then, did the maggi manage to convince King Herod that the prophecy in Daniel and other places in the OT referred to the messiah who was to be born at exactly that time? Clearly Herod, after consulting with the relevant experts around him at the time realised that the prophecy had enough merit to decide to kill thousands of firstborn male children under the age of 2! So if the principle works accurately in predicting Jesus birth, ministry and death...(am i missing something here?)

reference here? you are assuming a connection between Daniel 8 & 9. Daniel 9 uses a sabbath year cycle not a day year. I am not sure that answers the questions.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

also, your calculation is flawed...the jews used parts of days (eg Jesus statement to Jews "destroy this temple and in 3 days i will raise it again"...he was not in the grave for 3 full days)

not applicable this situation, because Adventist set the terms here. they insist on accuracy as a claim to origin,fulfillment and authority, so you can't have it both ways. the link I provided to "undoing 1844 made simple" delves into this in detail

 

[AdamjEdgar]

reference here? you are assuming a connection between Daniel 8 & 9. Daniel 9 uses a sabbath year cycle not a day year. I am not sure that answers the questions.

I am not assuming anything..I am asking you to directly to explain the year/day principle with respect to the maggie arriving in Jerusalem at exactly the time of Jesus birth claiming to Herod it had been foretold in the scriptures (clearly a reference to Daniel).

My point is this, if the year/day principle works perfectly in predicting Jesus birth, death, and the stoning of Stephen (it fits in perfectly even with this date 3.5 years after the messiah is killed), then why is the 1844 date wrong?

My understanding is that the 2300 year principle is actuall not in doubt...that is because the start date of 457 B.C is plainly obvious and because the dates of Jesus line up within the same period. To claim the 1844 date is wrong is also to deny that Jesus ministry dating is completely wrong (but clearly those dates are very accurate). We know from history that there is only a very small window for the characters in question to have all existed at the precise time the Maggi arrived in Jerusalem (around 3-4 b.c). We know that Herod killed John the baptist in A.D 28. We know that Stephen was almost certainly stoned to death 3.5 years after the crucifixion. The dates all lineup.

It seems to me that really the argument is, did Crosier and Bates link the heavenly sanctuary with IJ. I believe in principle (at the very least) they did because Jesus in his role as high priest, acts as our intercessor before the Father. When we talk intercessor, why is he doing this? Because we have sinned. The bible talks about the books being opened...what books? Why do such books exist? What is the book of life for exactly and how does God determine who's names are in it? It sounds a lot like an earthly legal process to me...in fact i would argue that our legal processes here on earth are a reflection of the legal processes used in heaven (we are created in the image of God).

In considering the overall themes involved here, i ask this, why would the heavenly sanctuary not look like the earthly copy? John in Revelation talks about seeing the ark of the covenant in the heavenly sanctuary...is this not meaningful in illustrating that the institution is identical to the earthly one?


We know that God is the one on trial in the plan of salvation... He could have just killed Lucifer immediately instead of allowing this 6,000 story of misery to play out! God did not do that. Des Fords argument that an almighty God does not need hundreds of years to figure out who, of those who claim to be true believers, worthy of salvation and who are not, is completely irrelevant. The argument is refuted by the historical fact its taken 6,000+ years to get to this point...why did God even need that amount of time?

 

[tall73]

I disagree, I think it is abundantly obvious that the article by Crosier is absolutely about the heavenly Sanctuary (of which the IJ is part of that service)

Of course it is about the sanctuary. But the IJ was a later aspect of the overall sanctuary doctrine that developed over time.

Crosier's primary contribution was to flesh out the implications of Edson's view. It also differentiated them from some of those Millerites who thought that the Day of Atonement would be extremely short, or even one day.

But he did not develop the entire IJ aspect. That came later.

however, since you are the pastor here...perhaps you might enlighten us of your take on the 2300 day/year prophecy:

1. exactly what you believe is the timeline forward from 457 B.C to 1844 (2300 days/years) prophecy (because it lines up almost perfectly with Jesus birth, ministry, death, and stoning of Stephen...so I do not think it a stretch to obtain 1844 date)

I do not think the timelines would go to 1844. If you want to discuss Daniel chapter 8 we can do that.

EDIT...should you wish to discuss this with my dad (as it appears you do), then sure that can be arranged. Message me privately and i will give you his details.

I was saying he could just log on here. Does he not use the internet?

 

[AdamjEdgar]

reference here? you are assuming a connection between Daniel 8 & 9. Daniel 9 uses a sabbath year cycle not a day year. I am not sure that answers the questions.

oh i see. i hadnt really given that much thought...heres why,

Hasel and the Significance of the Hebrew Masculine Plural

In this connection it is worth noting a study by Seventh-day Adventist theologian Gerhard Hasel, “The Hebrew Masculine Plural for ‘Weeks’ in the Expression ‘Seventy Weeks’ in Daniel 9:24” (PDF at https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2088&context=auss). His thesis is that the use of the Hebrew masculine plural form of sabu’a in Daniel 9, markedly contrasting with the normally-used feminine plural ending (where the word generally refers to an ordinary seven-day week), signifies an underlying unity of the weeks. He claims this unity consists in their linear, gap-free sequence, such that the 70th week followed immediately after the 69th. In this way he finds support for the SDA contention that the 70th week was the years AD 28–34.

It must be said that Hasel’s grammatical analysis is solid and cogent.

The Daniel 9:24-27 Project - Associates for Biblical Research

see the thing is this, if the SDA interpretation of prophecy lines up with significant dates and events (look forward and backward through the mathematical timeline), and at the same time matches with biblical themes and principles, then how do you explain that exactly? Is it just blind luck?​