what is Desmond Ford's problem and Why is He Wrong?

[woobadooba]

NO Takers, yawn! I knew no one would take the challange. Just like I thought. They can't defend.

Who would want to discuss something with someone who has an attitude like this?

Seriously!

Do you honestly think such discussion would be fruitful?

From your comments it is quite clear that you have already made up your mind on the issue.

I am really tired of all this antagonistic nonsense! Enough id enough already!

 

[woobadooba]

NO Takers, yawn! I knew no one would take the challange. Just like I thought. They can't defend.

Who would want to discuss something with someone who has an attitude like this?

Seriously!

Do you honestly think such discussion would be fruitful?

From your comments it is quite clear that you have already made up your mind on the issue.

I am really tired of all this antagonistic nonsense! Enough is enough already!

 

[Jimlarmore]

thanks jim. why does he reject the day for a year?

did you see my issue post?

could you venture a guess?

Yes I see the issue point and to a degree I agree with some of the things Ford brings up. The Bible does not come right out and say that a day represents a year in prophecy, however, it works very well and the application is undeniable thru out the Bible. I guess that is the main problem I have with his rejection of the day for a year principle. Some of the most outstanding of these prophecies are of course the 2300 days, the messianic prophecy or the 70 week prophecy, the prophecy of the little horns reign and the beast are indentical etc. i.e. the 1260 days is given in more than one form and 7 times in Daniel and Revelation. If you thow out the day for a year principle then none of these make sense for fulfillment and fall into a rediculous catagory.

Also, there are other major issues the SDA church and independently I have with his exegesis of scripture.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

I would encourage anyone interested in the idea of a year for a day to look at the 2300days.com site. This is the most extensive examination of the topic I have ever seen.

If after reading his section on the day year principle I would love to hear of anyone who could still hold to that view and what reason they could give.

Here is the conclusion he gives:

A. The Year Day Principle: Number 14:34

The year day concept is not taught is Numbers 14: 34. In the phrase “day for a year” it is a day that represents a year. That is to say, it is the “days” that are symbolic. It is not “days” that are symbolic in this text but “years.” The forty days are the historical or literal period used in this text. This has significant ramifications since SDAs argue that it is the “days” that are symbolic here.
B.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]The Year-Day Principle: Ezekiel 4: 6


The historical or literal period used in this text are in years. The “days” in this text are symbolic but SDA historicists do not use the ratio outlined in this text to calculate their time periods. If they used the principle taught in this text, the time periods would be even shorter than if taken literally from the text.
C.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]The Year-Day Principle: Daniel 9: 24-27


Historically these texts were used to prove the validity of using the year-day principle, since it is seventy “of weeks.” Thus, 70 weeks can only compute to the necessary 490 years if each day is reckoned as a year. But this argument is found to be without foundation as the seventy weeks should be calculated without the use of the year day principle. The first millennium of Christian history interpreted the seventy weeks correctly without the use of the year-day principle. That this principle yielded the same results in calculations, only misled those who were unfamiliar with the correct method of calculating the period, who assumed the method they were using was the original and correct method. They show their ignorance of the proper method and its venerable history. In short, there is no evidence from Dn9 to support a year-day principle. Important primary evidence from Roman writer Marcus Varro shows that the concept of using a “heptomad” to represent a group of days or years without any “year-day principle” is extant, and shows that the concept was known in the times of the early Christians.


D.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]The use of “times” in Daniel for 3½ times
Historically, the early church taught and believed that the 1260 days, the 42 months and the 3½ times were a solar period of 3½ years. This was the case for a millennium. It was only after different methods of trying to rationalise the time periods to fit the outworking of history, that such principles as “a century for a day” or “a year for a day” started to be promulgated as a rubric to interpret time periods. But there is no need to deviate from what the early church believed. The period is to be correctly understood as 3½ solar years.
E.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]The time periods are “converted” one step too many.


To understand the final length of the symbolic periods of time given in the prophetic books in general and the book of Daniel in particular, they should be converted to normal nomenclature. When that is done, it should be left, since this represents the literal solar time involved. SDA historicists go one step too many and assume that normal nomenclature is also symbolic/figurative and needs to be “converted again.” This is unwarranted. The symbolic names for time include "evenings-mornings,” “times” and “weeks (of years).” These are converted to the literal names “day,” “year” and “seven years” respectively. There is no more converting to be done.


A. In concluding this discussion regarding the validity of the year-day principle, it should be said firstly, that this principle has two fatal flaws: (a) it incorrectly calls a literal explanation, a figurative unit, and (b) it takes the “desymbolisation” of these units one step too far.
In regard to the first flaw, it is the 40 days sortie in Num 14:34 that determines the unit of years to be used for the banishment to the desert. The 40-days is the literal unit in this text. In Eze 4: 6 it is the years of rebellion that determines the unit of days to be used for the siege enactment by Ezekiel. These are the literal unit in this text.


If we say on the other hand however, that the literal period is the consequence of the first period, and the first period being used as a symbolic determinant, then in Num 14:34, it is the 40 years of banishment that is the literal period, and in Eze 4: 6, it is the days of the siege-enactment that are the literal period here. Therefore, regardless of whichever way you define figurative and literal here, you end up with different time units in either text being called literal. If you choose the first definition above, then your symbolic unit is days in Num 14: 34 and years in Eze 4: 6, but if you choose the second option, then your symbolic unit in Num 14: 34 is years and in Eze 4: 6, it is days. This means that one cannot argue that there is only the “day for a year” principle acting in both texts. The usage of the dictum “day for a year” is opposite in either text. And regardless of your definition of symbolic or literal, you still come out with opposite units of time.


In regard to the second flaw, the explanations of ‘iddan, ‘ereb-boqer and shabu`â have the literal explanation of “year,” “day,” and “seven/week” respectively. That is the end of the “desymbolising” step. These units are the literal lengths of these time units. This means that the following lengths of time apply to the prophetic periods: the 2300 ‘ereb-bôqer are 2300 days; the 3 ½ ‘iddan are 3 ½ years; and the 1290 and the 1335 days are 1290 and 1335 days. The 70 shabu’îm are 490 years without the use of the year-day principle.


B. Another conclusion of this paper is that since SDA historicists cannot use Ezekiel 4:6 as their model for calculating prophetic periods, and they cannot use Numbers 14: 34 as their model since it is the years of their banishment that are symbolic, not the days of spying, they have no text to use as a model to support their method of calculation. The only basis they have for their “year-day principle” is the proof-text tradition of extracting the phrase “a day for a year” from these two texts without considering the context in which they are used, and just applying it however they will to the time periods they want to convert. As explicitly stated by the SDABC, it is the statement of scale they are interested in when they consider Numbers 14: 34 and Ezekiel 4:6, not the context.


C. Therefore, in weighing up the arguments presented above, I assert that the year-day principle invoked by SDA historicists is a dubious principle based firstly, on the antiquated proof-text method used in past centuries where the phrase is extracted from the context and quoted without regard to its original setting. Secondly, it is based on a collection of assumptions that are incorrect. Furthermore, the often touted rationale supporting the “discovery” of the true meaning of the 2,300 days by SDA historicists as being itself a fulfilment of prophecy is a circular argument, and without explicit support from scripture. Note Maxwell.


The fulfillment of the 1260 days as 1260 years confirmed the understanding of the 2300 days as 2300 years and this became a key to the further understanding of the sanctuary prophecy of Daniel 8: 14: “For [or rather, until] two thousand

 

[Sophia7]

Yes I see the issue point and to a degree I agree with some of the things Ford brings up. The Bible does not come right out and say that a day represents a year in prophecy, however, it works very well and the application is undeniable thru out the Bible. I guess that is the main problem I have with his rejection of the day for a year principle. Some of the most outstanding of these prophecies are of course the 2300 days, the messianic prophecy or the 70 week prophecy, the prophecy of the little horns reign and the beast are indentical etc. i.e. the 1260 days is given in more than one form and 7 times in Daniel and Revelation. If you thow out the day for a year principle then none of these make sense for fulfillment and fall into a rediculous catagory.

Also, there are other major issues the SDA church and independently I have with his exegesis of scripture.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

You don't need the year-day principle to get 490 years out of the 70 weeks; you can go by the jubilee cycle, which makes much more sense biblically. As far as the 2300 days/years, that works only for those who already believe that 1844 was a fulfillment of prophecy. The problem is that nothing happened in 1844 that we can point to as a fulfillment to anyone not already inclined to believe the SDA teaching.

Also, even if a person were to accept the year-day principle, there is the problem of when to date the beginning of the 2300 days/70 weeks (assuming for the moment that they start at the same time, which I don't actually agree with). The fall of 457 B.C. is a controversial date for the going forth of the decree of Artaxerxes (also assuming that is the correct decree, which is also controversial). Most historians think that it happened earlier than that, possibly even in late 458 B.C.

Prescott (who accepted the year-day principle), in suggesting revisions to the 1911 Great Controversy, asserted that the decree was issued in the spring of 457 B.C. rather than in the fall, as EGW had written. His suggestion was not followed, and W.C. White commented that his mother had seen the details regarding the prophetic chronology in vision. Thus, we as Adventists are officially stuck with that date despite historical evidence that contradicts what EGW saw in vision. Here is a quote from http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/GC-Prescott.html regarding this:

70. Page 327: In dealing with the decree of Artaxerxes, it is stated that it went into effect in the autumn of B.C. 457."

On the basis of this interpretation the 483 years are made to extend to the autumn of A.D. 27, when, it is stated on the same page, that: "Christ was baptized by John."

Further interpreting "the midst of the week" to mean the middle of the week, it is stated, on the same page, that: "In A. D. 31, three and a half years after His baptism, our Lord was crucified."

The same method of beginning the 2300 days in the autumn of B. C. 457 is used in the argument on pages 398, 400, and 410; and the time of the baptism is definitely fixed as the autumn of A. D. 27, and the crucifixion as the spring of A.D. 31. No proof is given, except the claim that the 2300 years commenced in the autumn of B.C. 457. But the Scripture statement is very plain; it says: "Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem unto Messiah the Prince, shall be seven weeks, and three score and two weeks," et cetera.

It is very difficult for me to see how the expression "From the going forth of the commandment," can be made to mean from the time that Ezra commenced to build the city, at least six months after the commandment went forth.

Furthermore, in my investigation of this subject, I find much good argument for placing the baptism in 27, either the spring or the summer of 27; and for placing the crucifixion either in A.D. 29 or 30; but I find no authority for making it as late as 31, except the marginal chronology of the Authorized Version of the Bible, which is Usher's chronology. This chronology has been accepted by our writers to establish the baptism in A.D. 27, but has been rejected so far as it relates to the crucifixion, which is placed by it in A.D. 33.

It seems to me abundantly evident from the Scripture and history that the 2300 days commenced in the spring of B.C. 457; that the baptism was not later than the early part of A.D. 27; that the crucifixion was not later than the early part of A.D. 30; and that the 2300 days must end in the spring of 1844. This interpretation appears to me to be in harmony both with Scripture and history.

And this was the original interpretation of William Miller, as stated on page 328: "Miller and his associates at first believed that the 2300 days would terminate in the spring of 1844 whereas the prophecy points to the autumn of that year."

I am unable to see that the prophecy does point to the autumn of that year. The diagram inserted between pages 328 and 329 places the crucifixion in A.D. 31, the setting up of the papacy in 538, the ending of the 1260 years in 1798, and the ending of the 2300 years in the autumn of 1844."

Response: Negative. No change made in the text.

Observation: W. C. White in describing Ellen White's work and its relation to the visions declared: "The framework of the great temple of truth sustained by her writings was presented to her clearly in vision. In some features of this work, information was given in detail. Regarding some features of the revelation, such as the features of prophetic chronology, as regards the ministration in the sanctuary and the changes that took place in 1844, the matter was presented to her many times and in detail many times, and this enabled her to speak clearly and very positively regarding the foundation pillars of our faith."--W. C. White to L. E. Froom, January 8, 1928 (Published in 3SM 462).
​

The fact is that scholars can prove with reasonable certainty only one date in the Adventist interpretation of the 70 weeks--the baptism of Jesus in A.D. 27. That isn't going to give non-Adventists and especially non-Christians much confidence in our prophetic scheme if we try to convince them of it.

These are only a few of the problems with the traditional Adventist view. Desmond Ford has raised many valid concerns, and many Adventist scholars and educators and pastors privately agree with him but can't speak openly for fear of losing their jobs. The administrators, however, continue to refuse to look at these issues honestly and objectively.

 

[Sophia7]

I would encourage anyone interested in the idea of a year for a day to look at the 2300days.com site. This is the most extensive examination of the topic I have ever seen.

If after reading his section on the day year principle I would love to hear of anyone who could still hold to that view and what reason they could give.

Here is the conclusion he gives:

Thanks for the link, RC.

 

[Jimlarmore]

You don't need the day-for-a-year principle to get 490 years out of the 70 weeks; you can go by the jubilee cycle, which makes much more sense biblically. As far as the 2300 days/years, that works only for those who already believe that 1844 was a fulfillment of prophecy. The problem is that nothing happened in 1844 that we can point to as a fulfillment to anyone not already inclined to believe the SDA teaching.

There is nothing in context to lead one to use the jubilee system.

2300 literal days is only 6.38 years. Nothing I repeat NOTHING can be attributed to happen in 6.38 years from this vision or the dates of any of the three decrees. 2300 literal days do NOT make any sense at all.

Rev 11:16-19 clearly tells us that the time would come for the dead to be judged. The context is not 2nd coming it is end time before 2nd coming. In context on both sides of these texts we see the most Holy place open with where ark of the covenant is revealed and we see the little book that was sealed being opened in Rev 10 ( this is most likely Daniel ) and the bitter stomach could very easily point symbolically to the great disappointment of 1844.

Also, even if a person were to accept the day-for-a-year principle, there is the problem of when to date the beginning of the 2300 days/70 weeks (assuming for the moment that they start at the same time, which I don't actually agree with). The fall of 457 B.C. is a controversial date for the going forth of the decree of Artaxerxes (also assuming that is the correct decree, which is also controversial). Most historians think that it happened earlier than that, possibly even in late 458 B.C.

I spent several months studying this a couple years ago. Have you ever heard of the Chronicles of Ezra? This is a very good book that is no longer in print and I saw it referenced in the SDA Bible commentary on this subject. The date of 457 B.C. is pretty solid for a number of reasons. I think from what I have studied the best of which is the fact that Artaxerxes 11 also not only gave the decree but put money behind it on this date is it works best for the baptism of Christ. Satan was aware of Gabriels words to Daniel and assuredly impressed more than one decree to confuse the issue. However, only one caused a massive Jewish migration to start. On the other hand you are right about the controversy over the dates. Many Biblical scholars align with other dates.

The fact is that scholars can prove with reasonable certainty only one date in the Adventist interpretation of the 70 weeks--the baptism of Jesus in A.D. 27. That isn't going to give non-Adventists and especially non-Christians much confidence in our prophetic scheme if we try to convince them of it.

Except the wording of the 70 week specifically uses the word "cut off". Cut off of what? The only thing that the 70 week prophecy could be cut off of was the 2300 days.

These are only a few of the problems with the traditional Adventist view. Desmond Ford has raised many valid concerns, and many Adventist scholars and educators and pastors privately agree with him but can't speak openly for fear of losing their jobs. The administrators, however, continue to refuse to look at these issues honestly and objectively.

I'm certainly not saying we have it perfectly right in every aspect. I'm also not saying every aspect of the IJ is right. However, the church to me is close enough at this point to embrace most of it. I fully acept the day for a year principle in prophecy. Any other idea is non-sense to make a reckoning of the prophecies. Ford is not right about this idea at all. His teachings for the most part are an apostacy to our church.

The problem I guess to me lies in the extent of spreading confusion among the church. The Bible tells us that satan is the author of confusion. The IJ doctrine is unique among all of Christiandom but it is fairly clear and it can be supported from the Bible.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Adventist Dissident]

you guy are too far ahead slow down. there is a reason i put that last. it is to controversal, 1 @ a time,

Who is the little horn of daniel 8?

I've been taught Rome, any disagreements Jim?

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Except the wording of the 70 week specifically uses the word "cut off". Cut off of what? The only thing that the 70 week prophecy could be cut off of was the 2300 days.

It merely means decreed, it in no way needs to mean cut off from somthing else.

I was looking for the chain of events that have to be assumed in order to come up with the IJ as we have it. I see Dale Ratzlaff has a list of 22 things put I can't find a copy of it. Several of the links in the chain are pretty clearly already broken.

From 1998 here is a letter to Adventist Today by Desmond Ford:

In the current issue of Adventist Today (March-April 1998) on pages 6 and 9 Drs. Rodriguez, Davidson, and Gane inquire why Dale Ratzlaff seemed to ignore the arguments set forth in General Conference publications after Glacier View. Perhaps some light can be thrown on the situation.
The books mentioned sprang from the Daniel and Revelation committee established to reply to the questions I had raised on Dan. 8:14 and our Investigative Judgment teaching. One member of the committee whom I regard as one of the best scholars in the church said to me: "On this committee those who know most say least, and those who know least say most." I understood this because the situation was identical in the pre-Glacier View committee which was appointed by the church to meet with me for many hours. The meetings were recorded, but the G.C. will never make the transcripts public because of this feature. Another scholar in his college office waved his hands at the seven books and said to me, "Don?t read them! Simply awful!" Apparently he viewed them as a ?snow job?. I agree. I know of no Adventist scholar who would dare to write or say the arguments found therein to any group of non-Adventist scholars.
Let me illustrate. In volume three of the series, The Seventy Weeks, Leviticus, and the Nature of Prophecy, the article by Gerhard Hasel admits that "the actual wording of the command of Artaxerxes I of 457 BC makes no explicit mention of any order to rebuild the city of Jerusalem." "?the validity of applying the 457 BC decree depends upon an uncertain interpretation of Ezra 4:7-23." (p.51) In the Ferch article "Commencement Date for the Seventy-Week Prophecy" (pp. 64-74) we find these apologies.
"Unfortunately, no explicit proclamation is known?.Interpreters, therefore, have been obliged to deduce?" (p. 65).
"Ezra 7 mentions a third decree, issued this time by the Persian king Artaxerxes?. Assuming that this king is Artaxerxes I.?" (p. 68).
Key words in the Ferch argument are ?presumably?, ?seem?, ?suggests?, and ?implied?. See pages 70 and 74. His whole case is guesswork about the dating of Ezra 4, whereas most modern scholars agree with the Jerome Biblical Commentary that confesses: "We must leave as an insoluble enigma the date of chapter 4" (p. 388).
This uncertainty makes the conclusions of Hasel and Ferch invalid and quite unacceptable to scholars not dedicated to propping up crumbling traditions. No outside press would dream of publishing the materials found in these seven volumes.
However, at least these books are consistent with the church paper. In the Adventist Review (Vol. 158, No. 31, "Special Issue on Bible Doctrines," 1981, pp. 26-27) we find the following language as it labors to support the Investigative Judgment: "it seems clear," "assuming," "suggests," "The Scriptures do not offer a detailed explanation of the work that was to begin in heaven in 1844," "it is reasonable to assume," "the term ?investigative judgment? is not found in the Bible."
To return to the D & R committee whose works are recommended to us, we are forced to wonder how the committee can be so certain of 1844 when they admit repeatedly that the starting date is uncertain.
Men involved in trying to preserve the Investigative Judgment must be lonely men. Most scholars in Adventism gave up the task long ago and thus they never write or preach about it.
The consensus statement of Glacier View (since buried by the church when read more closely) made the following admissions:
1. It is the little horn, and not the sins of the saints, which defiles the sanctuary.
2. The cleansing of Daniel 8:14 has to do with restoring the damage done not by the saints but by the little horn.
3. The meaning of the key verb in Daniel 8:14 is not basically "cleanse," but "justify, vindicate, and restore."
4. There is no obvious verbal link between Daniel 8 and Leviticus 16.
5. The year-day principle is not explicit in scripture.
6. Hebrews 9 does draw on the Day of Atonement to illustrate that which Christ did by his sacrifice.
7. "Within the veil" applies to the second veil, not the first, and points to access to the Most Holy Place immediately after the Cross.
8. Hebrews does not teach a two-apartment ministry (or two phases).
9. Christ, not the Father, is the great Judge in the final judgment.
10. We should not speak of our Lord?s heavenly ministry in terms of apartments.
11. The New Testament viewed the second advent as imminent in its day (and thus had no cognizance of 1844).
12. Sacrificial blood purifies rather than defiles.
One is forced to ask: "What would the three good doctors (named on p. 8 of AT) say to an unsophisticated believer who asked them for the New Testament verses on the Investigative Judgment?" Furthermore, what would be their answer if someone more learned referred to the Bible principle, seven times set forth, that "in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established," and applied it to 1844? There isn?t even one verse, one witness, that proves 1844. Both Testaments are silent. Neither years nor days are mentioned in Dan. 8:14, though days are mentioned elsewhere in the book. The Hebrew expression ?ereb boqer? (evening morning) is but a reference to the daily (tamid) service with its continual offering before sunset and after dawn.
The brethren quoted in AT insist that the purpose of the Investigative Judgment is to vindicate God. That is not our traditional interpretation, as anyone who reads GC 428, 280, 482, 485 can see. Drs. Heppenstall and Maxwell introduced the view these good men are claiming as original Adventism.
When Dr. Rodriguez claims that there is no reason for Adventism to exist if wrong on the IJ he is saying something that is appalling. If I considered him correct I would leave Adventism this very day. Is not our task to present "the everlasting gospel" of Rev. 14:6 mirrored in that physical rest every seventh day which testifies to our constant rest of conscience through faith in the finished work of Christ?
It?s time for the church to be honest, to come clean. How can anyone with intelligence read Hebrews nine and ten in modern translations (which ARE linguistically correct) and hold to the baggage we invented to mask our disappointment over 1844? It is not necessary for a church to be infallible for God to use it, but it is necessary to be honest.
I should confess that I too for years did my labored best to defend the IJ and only surrendered as continued study proved that the evidence contrary to the traditional view was overwhelming.
Desmond Ford
Auburn, CA

 

[Jimlarmore]

you guy are too far ahead slow down. there is a reason i put that last. it is to controversal, 1 @ a time,

Who is the little horn of daniel 8?

I've been taught Rome, any disagreements Jim?

If by Rome you mean Papal Rome then no I have no disagreements.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Sophia7]

I was looking for the chain of events that have to be assumed in order to come up with the IJ as we have it. I see Dale Ratzlaff has a list of 22 things put I can't find a copy of it. Several of the links in the chain are pretty clearly already broken.

Ratzlaff's list of 22 assumptions that must be valid in order for the SDA sanctuary/IJ doctrine to be correct actually came from Ford, and I couldn't find the list online. (It would have been so much more convenient if I could have just copied and pasted this. ) Here they are, quoted from Ford's (approximately 700-page) book Daniel 8:14, the Day of Atonement, and the Investigative Judgment, pp. 174-176:

1. That Dan. 8:14 speaks of 2300 days. (While Dan. 12 repeatedly uses the Hebrew word for days, it is not to be found in 8:14. Instead we have the ambiguous "evening-morning" which most apply to the evening and morning burnt offerings. Thus instead of 2300 days, if these exegetes are correct, only 1150 days are in view.)

2. That these 2300 "days" equal 2300 years. (Though it is quite impossible to prove that the year-day principle is a Biblical datum, and even if we could, days are not mentioned in either 8:14 or 9:24, so there is no basis to apply the principle in these instances.)

3. That these 2300 years begin centuries before the "little horn" began his attack on the sanctuary. (Though in the context, the 2300 has been understood by many as applying to the length of time the little horn is trampling the sanctuary underfoot and suspending its daily offerings.)

4. That the 2300 years begin at the same time as the seventy weeks. (Though there is no scripture to say so. The Hebrew chathak means “cut” or “decree,” and there is no way of proving that the cutting off of the 490 from 2300 is intended.)

5. That it is possible to be certain of the exact year that the seventy weeks begin. (Though exegetes have been agreed on this point. Is the decree like that of 9:23, a heavenly one from God, or one from an earthly king?)

6. That the decree of Artaxerxes recorded in Ezra 7 has to do with the restoring and building of Jerusalem? (Though there is nothing in Ezra 7 that says this. The context says that this decree, like those of Cyrus and Darius, had to do with the temple. The magistrates were to enforce the temple laws. See Ezra 6:14 which places this decree among the temple decrees.)

7. That the decree of Ezra 7 “went forth” in 457 BC when Ezra had arrived in Jerusalem and set to work. (Though Ezra never says this, and the decree had been announced at least six months earlier. There is nothing in Daniel to say that this decree should be dated from the time of its implementation rather than its enunciation.)

8. That we can show 408 to be the time when the restoration of the city was completed. (Admitted even by Adventist scholars to be an impossible task.)

9. That we can show that AD 27 was the date of Christ’s baptism. (A similarly difficult feat.)

10. That AD 31 was the date of the crucifixion. (Almost all scholars hold to other years, not this one. Evidence from Grace Amadon’s researches, often used by SDAs, is based on doubtful assumptions, as admitted by our own commentary.)

11. That AD 34 was the date of the gospel going to the Gentiles. (Though there is no way of proving that AD 34 was the time of the stoning of Stephen, and Acts 13:46 presents the turning to the Gentiles at a much later date.)

12. That the 2300 days end with the beginning of the antitypical Day of Atonement. (Though the Day of Atonement revolved around the sacrifice for sin, an event we believe took place about eighteen centuries earlier. The divesting of his glorious robes by the high priest prefigured the incarnation of Christ which did not take place in 1844. The book of Hebrews clearly applies the Day of Atonement in antitype to Christ’s priestly offering of Himself on Calvary, though the Christian era is included as we wait for our High Priest to come out.)

13. That until this date was reached, Christ was doing that work prefigured by the first apartment outside the veil. (Though Hebrews tells us that the work of that apartment symbolized the ineffectual offerings of the Levitical era when men had restricted access to God, and experienced outward ceremonial cleansing rather than perfection of the conscience.)

14. That the work symbolized by the second apartment of the sanctuary was not to begin till over 1800 years after the cross. (Though Heb. 9:8, 12, 24, 25; 10:19, 20; 6:19, 20 says Christ entered “within the veil” at His ascension.) The sprinkling of the blood on the mercy seat took place immediately after its shedding.

15. That the sanctuary of Dan. 8:14 means the sanctuary in heaven. (Though the context is about the sanctuary on earth.)

16. That “cleansed” is an accurate translation in Dan. 8:14. (Though this is certainly not the case.)

17. That the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement was cleansed from defilement occasioned by the confession of sin and ministration of blood. (Though Nu. 19:13, etc., indicate that the sanctuary was defiled when a person sinned, regardless of whether confession was made. In most cases, blood never went into the sanctuary.)

18. That the cleansing of the sanctuary in 8:14 has to do with the sins of the professed believers in Christ. (Though the context has to do with a defilement accomplished by Antichrist, not the host of God’s people who are suffering, not sinning, in the context.)

19. That this cleansing of 8:14 is also found in Dan. 7 in its judgment scene, and that the latter also has to do with investigation of the sins of the saints. (Though again in Dan. 7, as in 8, it is a wicked power which is the focus of the judgment.)

20. That Rev. 14:7 has to do with the same investigative judgment of the sins of the saints. (Though John never uses the word krisis other than in a negative sense—for unbelievers, and though the very next verse tells us that it is Babylon which endures the judgment, as the later chapters of Revelation also testify.)

21. That verses like Acts 3:19 point to the investigative judgment. (None of such verses studied in context yield any such conclusion.)

22. That much depends upon Oct. 22, 1844, as the beginning of the antitypical Day of Atonement. (Though Oct. 22, 1844 was not the day observed by contemporary Jews, even the majority of Karaites. Neither is there evidence that the baptism of Christ, or the stoning of Stephen took place on the Day of Atonement, which would have been necessary if the 49 years, the 434, 490, and 2300 years are each precise in terminus. In contrast, observe that Ellen G. White could write: “I saw that God was in the proclamation of the time in 1843. . . . Ministers were convinced of the correctness of the positions taken on the prophetic periods” (SG 232). Observe she is talking about the 1843 terminus, not Oct. 22, 1844. Furthermore she is speaking of periods ending then, not just one period. Miller had over a dozen, including the 6000 years, the seven times, the 1335 days, etc.)​

 

[Adventist Dissident]

If by Rome you mean Papal Rome then no I have no disagreements.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

either one if fine with me. papal it is.
tell me does the trampling of the sanctuary is that done by papal rome?

 

[woobadooba]

either one if fine with me. papal it is.
tell me does the trampling of the sanctuary is that done by papal rome?

Ice, what are you trying to do here?

Are you trying to indoctrinate us, get us to leave the SDA church, discourage us, antagonize us?

Just what is it that you are trying to do in here?

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Ice, what are you trying to do here?

Are you trying to indoctrinate us, get us to leave the SDA church, discourage us, antagonize us?

Just what is it that you are trying to do in here?

I'm trying to have an intelligent conversation about the issues in daniel. if you don't want to discuss leave.

In the process we have to define what we believe. I just want to make sure Jim and I are on the same page, in our understanding of the SDA position. you are bing paranoid or you understand the problem and are afraid of discussion. You don't own this fourm If you stoped acting like you did maybe you would have an easier time here.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Thanks Sophia I will post that on my blog, it somehow gets indexed pretty well to search engines. So the next time someone won't have to spend the time to type it in.

 

[Sophia7]

Thanks Sophia I will post that on my blog, it somehow gets indexed pretty well to search engines. So the next time someone won't have to spend the time to type it in.

I just edited a couple of typos that I had made. It should be correct now.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

If by Rome you mean Papal Rome then no I have no disagreements.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

OK Jim here is a question

8 The goat (greece) became very great, but at the height of his power his large horn was broken off, (alexander) and in its place four prominent (4 division of empire)horns grew up toward the four winds of heaven. 9 Out of one of them came another horn,(Papal Rome) which started small but grew in power to the south and to the east and toward the Beautiful Land. 10 It grew until it reached the host of the heavens, and it threw some of the starry host down to the earth and trampled on them. 11 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. 12 Because of rebellion, the host of the saints [a] and the daily sacrifice were given over to it. It prospered in everything it did, and truth was thrown to the ground.
13 Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to him, "How long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled—the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, the rebellion that causes desolation, and the surrender of the sanctuary and of the host that will be trampled underfoot?"
14 He said to me, "It will take 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary will be reconsecrated. (cleansed in KJV)


Ok Jim here is the question in SDA secenero papal Rome is depicted as the "little horn" power that tramples the temple, fine. lets go with that for a second. My problem is not with that it is with the Question and Answer given by the "holy one"

Q: "How long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled—the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, the rebellion that causes desolation, and the surrender of the sanctuary and of the host that will be trampled underfoot?"

here the Holy one ask a question about the little horn power. How long will the little horn power have his way with the temple and the saints and the rebllion that causes desolation? How long is this going to last?

A: "It will take 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary will be reconsecrated. (cleansed in KJV)

The answer given is directly related to the activity of the little horn power. 2300 days the little horn power" will be active in desolating the temple and trampling the saints. This only applys remember to the little horn power.

The SDA postion takes the day year principal and make it 2300 years. It defines the beginning of prophecy as 457 bc and ends it in 1844. that is 2300 years

The problem is the Papal Rome did not exist in 457 bc was not trampling the temple in heaven or earth. Persia was in power. The temple was being rebuilt not defiled. It was not touched by anyone until Antiocus in 2nd centuary and then again by Rome in AD 70. At the end of the 2300 days in 1844, nothing happend to the "little horn" power. Papal rome is still around and untouched. Nothing happened to a temple in 1844.

The start date must begin with the trampling of the temple and end with something happening to the little horn and the temple, no matter what you use. day for a year or day for a day.

That is the problem.
Do you see this?

how do you deal with this problem?I don't know. this is what is tripping me up. any thoughts? can you help?

 

[Jimlarmore]

either one if fine with me. papal it is.
tell me does the trampling of the sanctuary is that done by papal rome?

This is actually a very good question and it really deserves to be answered. As a matter of fact it's critical to our understanding of the IJ. From the study I have done it's arguebly more than just papal rome that is doing the trampling here. I think the trampling is also being done by the sins of the people over the years.

However, the fact that this little horn power waxed great in three directions removes the selucid king Antiochus Epiphanes from serious consideration. The way the Roman power put down and destroyed the truth of salvation and literally destroyed the temple in 70A.D. makes it the prime candidate for this power. Concerning the other aspects of these texts we need to remember the sanctuary service and what it's function was.

The sanctuary here on earth was a pattern of the real one in heaven and it was a place to receive forgiveness of sins which was "the daily" spoken of in Dan 8:12. This was essentially taken away by the practice of the confessional in up and coming Roman ceremonies. Anyway, this power waxed strong against the prince of the host ( Dan 8:11), which is Christ that took away the necessity of the daily, and then they destroyed the temple in 70 A.D. This is very argueably some of the trampling spoken of for sure. Let's look at the other possibility as well.

The sancturary in heaven has been defiled by sin/s that were committed by the spiritual children of Israel just as the earthly was by the literal children of Israel. To me at this point it really does not matter how they were transferred to the sanctuary/s but once a year they had to be atoned for/purged during Yom Kipper on the day of atonement for the earthly and at the end of time for the heavenly.

When Dan 8:14 speaks of the sanctuary being cleansed Daniel and all Jews were fully aware of what Gabriel was talking about. The question now is when would that particular cleansing happen? If we abandon the day for a year principle we have to take the literal by default. 2300 days is only 6.38 years in Jewish time. In Daniel's time that wouldn't even allow for the temple to be built again. It just does not make any sense to use a literal day accounting. Since Gabriel told Daniel that this vision was for many days Dan 8:26 and the book was to be sealed for the time of the end Dan 12:9 we can be assured it was not literal but a day for a year. Also , the day for a year works out too well in the messianic prophecy.

So to answer your question after all of this, the trampling being done was not only the little horn or Rome but the sanctity of the heavenly sanctuary in heaven itself by the sins of the people.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Adventist Dissident]

This is actually a very good question and it really deserves to be answered. As a matter of fact it's critical to our understanding of the IJ. From the study I have done it's arguebly more than just papal rome that is doing the trampling here. I think the trampling is also being done by the sins of the people over the years.

However, the fact that this little horn power waxed great in three directions removes the selucid king Antiochus Epiphanes from serious consideration. The way the Roman power put down and destroyed the truth of salvation and literally destroyed the temple in 70A.D. makes it the prime candidate for this power. Concerning the other aspects of these texts we need to remember the sanctuary service and what it's function was.

The sanctuary here on earth was a pattern of the real one in heaven and it was a place to receive forgiveness of sins which was "the daily" spoken of in Dan 8:12. This was essentially taken away by the practice of the confessional in up and coming Roman ceremonies. Anyway, this power waxed strong against the prince of the host ( Dan 8:11), which is Christ that took away the necessity of the daily, and then they destroyed the temple in 70 A.D. This is very argueably some of the trampling spoken of for sure. Let's look at the other possibility as well.

The sancturary in heaven has been defiled by sin/s that were committed by the spiritual children of Israel just as the earthly was by the literal children of Israel. To me at this point it really does not matter how they were transferred to the sanctuary/s but once a year they had to be atoned for/purged during Yom Kipper on the day of atonement for the earthly and at the end of time for the heavenly.

When Dan 8:14 speaks of the sanctuary being cleansed Daniel and all Jews were fully aware of what Gabriel was talking about. The question now is when would that particular cleansing happen? If we abandon the day for a year principle we have to take the literal by default. 2300 days is only 6.38 years in Jewish time. In Daniel's time that wouldn't even allow for the temple to be built again. It just does not make any sense to use a literal day accounting. Since Gabriel told Daniel that this vision was for many days Dan 8:26 and the book was to be sealed for the time of the end Dan 12:9 we can be assured it was not literal but a day for a year. Also , the day for a year works out too well in the messianic prophecy.

So to answer your question after all of this, the trampling being done was not only the little horn or Rome but the sanctity of the heavenly sanctuary in heaven itself by the sins of the people.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

now you are talking Jim. this question must be answered. This is the crux of the SDA theological probelm. as far as the destruction of the temple I think it is a valid starting point, but the ramification are staggering and scary if you use the day for a year as principle and for the IJ, The IJ is dependant upon the termination being at the end of the prophecy & a link to leviticus. If it is Rome and is refering to the temple destruction then and you use the day for a year then the IJ has not even begun and won't for another 330+ years.

I am exploring Antiocus, but have just have started to examine it. if that is the case well

 

[Adventist Dissident]

6.38 this could apply to Anticous if you use the modern translation "reconsecrate".