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

[Jimlarmore]

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.

Only if you take a singular interpretation of what being "cast down" and trampled underfoot means.

Dan 8:11 says that this little horn power even magnified himself against the prince of the host. The verse before it in Dan 8:10 speaks of this power even waxing great against the host of heaven. This is clearly speaking of interferring with the things going on in heaven. Then in verse 11 it makes it pretty clear the prince of the host is Christ and it was historically a Roman Gov. that crucified Christ. This made the daily sacrifice unnecessary. Then it goes on to say "and the place of His sanctuary was cast down."

This to me could have more than one possible interpretation. How many? Well, let's look at this a minute. Weren't there two sanctuaries to start with, one in heaven and one on earth? Both of them belonging to the prince of the host, right? Couldn't both, having similar functions , be effected by this power? Anyway , let's look at two possibilities that make sense from history and the evidence.

1. It could have been pointing to the future destruction of the literal temple in Jerusalem in A.D. 70. This was the earthly sanctuary.

2. It could have been pointing to the abolishment of the work of forgiveness of sins being made directly to God by the establishment of a confessional system thru a man/priest. In that case that would be casting down the work of the heavenly sanctuary where Christ mediates directly for us.

In both cases the sanctuary is cast down by this little horn power. Number two above is being done as we speak so the application was not just in A.D. 70 only. The other aspects of the phrase being trampled underfoot could symbolize defilement of the heavenly sanctuary by the sins of spiritual Israel. I know this is thin at this point but it's in the plausible catagory.

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

Antiochus could not be considered to be waxing great in three directions as the little horn was said to wax. He was even told by a Roman prelate to not step out of a circle until he made up his mind to leave. I think this is where the phrase drawing a line in the sand came from but I am not sure. Anyway, he was eventually driven out of the holy land by the Maccabees which wouldn't fit a waxing power as described. Additionally, the time element does not fit.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Antiochus could not be considered to be waxing great in three directions as the little horn was said to wax. He was even told by a Roman prelate to not step out of a circle until he made up his mind to leave. I think this is where the phrase drawing a line in the sand came from but I am not sure. Anyway, he was eventually driven out of the holy land by the Maccabees which wouldn't fit a waxing power as described. Additionally, the time element does not fit.

i happen to disagree with this. I think antiochus primary activity is was in the south(egypt), the East and the beautiful land. If you think that antiochus had no impact. there is a holiday commerating the victory over him. it is called Hanukkah.


As far him being great, he was a "little horn", not a "big horn" that was alexander. I guess I am not expecting him to be "great" in the eyes of the world, just great as far as impact on God's people. This he did. He defiled the temple, set up an alter to Zeus, killed the jews and claimed dominance over the jews. It was so bad that it sparked a revolution that lead to an independent jewish state for over a 100 years. I call that impact.

I am not settled on this matter, but there is some merit to the claim.

 

[Jimlarmore]

i happen to disagree with this. I think antiochus primary activity is was in the south(egypt), the East and the beautiful land. If you think that antiochus had no impact. there is a holiday commerating the victory over him. it is called Hanukkah.


As far him being great, he was a "little horn", not a "big horn" that was alexander. I guess I am not expecting him to be "great" in the eyes of the world, just great as far as impact on God's people. This he did. He defiled the temple, set up an alter to Zeus, killed the jews and claimed dominance over the jews. It was so bad that it sparked a revolution that lead to an independent jewish state for over a 100 years. I call that impact.

I am not settled on this matter, but there is some merit to the claim.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion I guess but you need to have more evidence to back up this kind of conclusion, at least for me you do. Let's look at some of the things antiochus didn't do.

1. He didn't have anything to do with waxing great against the prince of the host, which if you look at Dan 8:11 has to be Christ because it speaks of taking away the daily sacrifice.

2. He did not cast the sanctuary down. He may have polluted it by sacrificing a pig on the altar but he didn't stop the daily from going on and he certainly didn't destroy the temple.

3. He was not a great conquering force in three directions as the Bible says. Antiochus Epiphanes didn't even complete his take over of Egypt because of the threat of Rome interferring at the beginning of the Maccabean wars. His armies were driven out of the Holy land by the Maccabees and when he came against them personally in reprisal of his armies being defeated by the Jews he suddenly died ending the march.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion I guess but you need to have more evidence to back up this kind of conclusion, at least for me you do. Let's look at some of the things antiochus didn't do.

1. He didn't have anything to do with waxing great against the prince of the host, which if you look at Dan 8:11 has to be Christ because it speaks of taking away the daily sacrifice.

2. He did not cast the sanctuary down. He may have polluted it by sacrificing a pig on the altar but he didn't stop the daily from going on and he certainly didn't destroy the temple.

3. He was not a great conquering force in three directions as the Bible says. Antiochus Epiphanes didn't even complete his take over of Egypt because of the threat of Rome interferring at the beginning of the Maccabean wars. His armies were driven out of the Holy land by the Maccabees and when he came against them personally in reprisal of his armies being defeated by the Jews he suddenly died ending the march.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

i am right at the beginning of my replacement search. you raise some valid concerns.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

The 2300 days is not correct

 

[Sophia7]

The 2300 days is not correct

Regardless of alternative views of Daniel 8 and whether they are correct or not, it has become quite clear to me as well that the SDA view of 2300 days is unbiblical. Even if I can't find a replacement for it, I can't continue to believe something that's wrong.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

yes you are right it is unbiblical. this is the linch pin of Adventism.

 

[Jimlarmore]

Regardless of alternative views of Daniel 8 and whether they are correct or not, it has become quite clear to me as well that the SDA view of 2300 days is unbiblical. Even if I can't find a replacement for it, I can't continue to believe something that's wrong.

Please explain to me how you have concluded it's not Biblical.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Sophia7]

Please explain to me how you have concluded it's not Biblical.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

I have discussed the reasons in other threads, but I think Ford's list, which I quoted in an earlier post in this thread, outlines the problems pretty well. Here again is the list of 22 assumptions that must all be valid in order for the Adventist sanctuary doctrine to work. Assumptions 1-4 are particularly relevant to the question of the 2300 days.

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.)​

 

[Jimlarmore]

I cut and pasted some refutations to these points in the other Ford thread. Did you happen to read any of them? Please go to this web-site and check it out.
http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/desmondfordtheology.htm

 

[Sophia7]

I cut and pasted some refutations to these points in the other Ford thread. Did you happen to read any of them? Please go to this web-site and check it out.
http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/desmondfordtheology.htm

Yes, I have read that document. I have read many other pro-IJ documents as well, including the Daniel and Revelation Committee Series (the most definitive apologetic work on this subject that the church has produced). I still don't believe that the Adventist sanctuary doctrine is biblical. However, I do disagree with Ford on his use of the "apotelesmatic principle" and his application of it to 1844.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

I have discussed the reasons in other threads, but I think Ford's list, which I quoted in an earlier post in this thread, outlines the problems pretty well. Here again is the list of 22 assumptions that must all be valid in order for the Adventist sanctuary doctrine to work. Assumptions 1-4 are particularly relevant to the question of the 2300 days.

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.) violate #1

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.)

Violates points 1,2,4,5,6

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.) Violates 1,4

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.) Violates 1,4

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.)

Violates 1, 2, 4
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.) violates 1,3

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.) assumes #12 is true

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. assumes #12, #13

15. That the sanctuary of Dan. 8:14 means the sanctuary in heaven. (Though the context is about the sanctuary on earth.) violates #1 ,3,5

16. That “cleansed” is an accurate translation in Dan. 8:14. (Though this is certainly not the case.) Violates 3

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.) Assume #12-16 are true.

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.) Assumes 12-17 are tue.

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.) violates #1
​

Sophia I like the article now that I understand it, but should be prefaced with the view you are propagating.

He is what the text says
1. 2300 days only applies to the "little horn" power of Daniel 8
2. 2300 days begins with the "trampling" "defiling" or "desacration" of the temple
3. 2300 days ends with the temple being "cleansed" or "restored" to its state prior to the defiling.
4. the "little horn" power come after the Ram(persia), the Goat (greece) the "big horn" (alexander the Great) the 4 divided horns, (4 division of the Greek empire) then the "little horn" power
5. The "little horn" come out of the 4 horns (the 4 division of the Greek empire.)
6. The "little horn" will be active in the South, East, and "Glorious Land"

This is what is the text says, now we must interpet.

The SDA interpation does not fit this criteria. it violate these points.

 

[Jimlarmore]

There is more than this in the context to consider as well. Again, you need to look beyond just the little horn.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Jimlarmore]

Sophia I like the article now that I understand it, but should be prefaced with the view you are propagating.

He is what the text says
1. 2300 days only applies to the "little horn" power of Daniel 8

You cannot assume this by the text alone here. Are you going to say Matt 24:15-20 only applied to the Jews in A.D. 70?

2. 2300 days begins with the "trampling" "defiling" or "desacration" of the temple

How can you be so sure? Is there any text in Dan 8 to give us a date to start with? Is this set of texts explicitely descriptive of a time we can know exactly when to start this 2300 day time period? Where do we actually find any text here that gives us a start date?

3. 2300 days ends with the temple being "cleansed" or "restored" to its state prior to the defiling.

If you take the 2300 days as literal then this does not make sense because the sanctuary wasn't even built in 6.38 years. Also, if you try to use the application of jubilee then it's the only place in the Bible that this application would come close to working. The day for a year works in the messianic prophecy. It also works here.

4. the "little horn" power come after the Ram(persia), the Goat (greece) the "big horn" (alexander the Great) the 4 divided horns, (4 division of the Greek empire) then the "little horn" power
5. The "little horn" come out of the 4 horns (the 4 division of the Greek empire.)

If you look at the original language it specifically mentions that this horn comes from the four winds not from one of the horns of the Greek rulers.

6. The "little horn" will be active in the South, East, and "Glorious Land"

This is what is the text says, now we must interpet.

The SDA interpation does not fit this criteria. it violate these points.

It does not say "active" it says "Waxed exceedingly great" in those directions. The SDA interpretation may not be perfect but it's not flawed as you are saying it is.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Sophia7]

Sophia I like the article now that I understand it, but should be prefaced with the view you are propagating.

He is what the text says
1. 2300 days only applies to the "little horn" power of Daniel 8
2. 2300 days begins with the "trampling" "defiling" or "desacration" of the temple
3. 2300 days ends with the temple being "cleansed" or "restored" to its state prior to the defiling.
4. the "little horn" power come after the Ram(persia), the Goat (greece) the "big horn" (alexander the Great) the 4 divided horns, (4 division of the Greek empire) then the "little horn" power
5. The "little horn" come out of the 4 horns (the 4 division of the Greek empire.)
6. The "little horn" will be active in the South, East, and "Glorious Land"

This is what is the text says, now we must interpet.

The SDA interpation does not fit this criteria. it violate these points.

I'm not sure what you mean. All of that was a quote from Ford's book. I stated at the beginning that my reason for posting it was to highlight the problems with the Adventist view. Ford's point was that all of those assumptions have to be true in order for the Adventist sanctuary teaching to be correct. The portions that he placed in parentheses in each point are his objections to those assumptions.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

You cannot assume this by the text alone here. Are you going to say Matt 24:15-20 only applied to the Jews in A.D. 70?

you show me that we should apply it to any one but the "little horn" you cannot conclude other wise base on the text

How can you be so sure? Is there any text in Dan 8 to give us a date to start with? Is this set of texts explicitely descriptive of a time we can know exactly when to start this 2300 day time period? Where do we actually find any text here that gives us a start date?

The "holy one" ask the question "how long is this going to be. That is a direct response to the "activity" of the "little horn". there is not other way to view that.

If you take the 2300 days as literal then this does not make sense because the sanctuary wasn't even built in 6.38 years. Also, if you try to use the application of jubilee then it's the only place in the Bible that this application would come close to working. The day for a year works in the messianic prophecy. It also works here.

this question make no sense to me. it never says anything about rebuilding in the text. the context is "defilement" and & "cleansing" or abuse and restoration. after 2300days the temple is restored to its state prior to abuse.

If you look at the original language it specifically mentions that this horn comes from the four winds not from one of the horns of the Greek rulers.

you know hebrew? I think this is a streach. the interpation tell us that the 4 division are 4 kingdoms. to which alexander's kingdom broke .

It does not say "active" it says "Waxed exceedingly great" in those directions. The SDA interpretation may not be perfect but it's not flawed as you are saying it is.

is there a difference, so the guy lit candles?? The sda interpetation is worse. we link the trampleing of the temple with the defilement of the temple by the sins of the people. we link the ending with the DAY of Atonement. And it never says that . We also apply day for a year and it does not say that. those are assumptions. If you go by that is says then that become the basis for how we apply and interpet.

Here is the dictonary definition
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?db=dictionary&q=waxed

 

[Adventist Dissident]

I'm not sure what you mean. All of that was a quote from Ford's book. I stated at the beginning that my reason for posting it was to highlight the problems with the Adventist view. Ford's point was that all of those assumptions have to be true in order for the Adventist sanctuary teaching to be correct. The portions that he placed in parentheses in each point are his objections to those assumptions.

The point I was trying to make is..... Most people who believe the 2300 day understand why you would challange the assumption made by Adventist . They are "right" it does not make anysense to them, But when some one points out what the text says and then goes after the assumptions it makes more sense.

I am speeking from personal experiance. I wish someone would have presented it like that.

Point to what the text says then point to the flaws. then I have a basis of comparison. It makes the most sense to me. That's all I was saying

 

[Adventist Dissident]

I'm not sure what you mean. All of that was a quote from Ford's book. I stated at the beginning that my reason for posting it was to highlight the problems with the Adventist view. Ford's point was that all of those assumptions have to be true in order for the Adventist sanctuary teaching to be correct. The portions that he placed in parentheses in each point are his objections to those assumptions.

The point I was trying to make is..... Most people who believe the 2300 day understand why you would challange the assumption made by Adventist . They are "right" it does not make anysense to them, But when some one points out what the text says and then goes after the assumptions it makes more sense.

I am speeking from personal experiance. I wish someone would have presented it like that.

Point to what the text says then point to the flaws. then I have a basis of comparison. It makes the most sense to me. That's all I was saying

 

[Jimlarmore]

you show me that we should apply it to any one but the "little horn" you cannot conclude other wise base on the text

Sure we can, let's examine why I say this.

#1. The book of Daniel flows from one prophecy to another i.e. from the time of Babylon to the time Christ comes back , is this agreed upon ? This section of Daniel is the second mention of the little horn power in the book of Daniel. In one the time for it too rule is given ( times , times and dividing of times 1260 days ) and in the second a time line for the cleansing of the sanctuary this power helped to defile is given. You can't interpret the meaning of one without considering the other and what the Bible says about it.

#2. If you take just this one section alone as you seem to want to insist on consider this. The little horn could not, nor did he cast down stars from heaven or the host of heaven as it says Dan 8:10. So this text is talking of another time and place/event that is completely separted from the little horn power yet its there in context. This to me tells me that this is multifacited in interpretive symbology.

The "holy one" ask the question "how long is this going to be. That is a direct response to the "activity" of the "little horn". there is not other way to view that.

Again, you insist on being short sighted. Please explain how this power could be seen to cast down the heavenly host then.

you know hebrew? I think this is a streach. the interpation tell us that the 4 division are 4 kingdoms. to which alexander's kingdom broke .

You need to buy you a hebrew and greek interlinear Bible. The original language says that this horn arose from one of the four winds of the earth and not from one of the four horns of greece.

is there a difference, so the guy lit candles?? The sda interpetation is worse. we link the trampleing of the temple with the defilement of the temple by the sins of the people. we link the ending with the DAY of Atonement. And it never says that . We also apply day for a year and it does not say that. those are assumptions. If you go by that is says then that become the basis for how we apply and interpet.

If the day for a year principle is bogus then why does the messianic prophecy work out perfectly? Even in the adjusted views the messiah was baptized within 6 months of what the SDA's interpret Him to be. Also the time, times and dividing of times, the 42 months and the 1260 days is repeated seven times in some form or fashion in Daniel and Revelation. The time for the beast power to rule came to an end in 1798 right on time as the prophecy said. Do you have an alternative explanation for that?

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Daniel 8 (King James Version)

King James Version (KJV)


Daniel 8

1In the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar a vision appeared unto me, even unto me Daniel, after that which appeared unto me at the first.
2And I saw in a vision; and it came to pass, when I saw, that I was at Shushan in the palace, which is in the province of Elam; and I saw in a vision, and I was by the river of Ulai.
3Then I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and, behold, there stood before the river a ram which had two horns: and the two horns were high; but one was higher than the other, and the higher came up last.
4I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward; so that no beasts might stand before him, neither was there any that could deliver out of his hand; but he did according to his will, and became great.
5And as I was considering, behold, an he goat came from the west on the face of the whole earth, and touched not the ground: and the goat had a notable horn between his eyes.
6And he came to the ram that had two horns, which I had seen standing before the river, and ran unto him in the fury of his power.
7And I saw him come close unto the ram, and he was moved with choler against him, and smote the ram, and brake his two horns: and there was no power in the ram to stand before him, but he cast him down to the ground, and stamped upon him: and there was none that could deliver the ram out of his hand.
8Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven.
9And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.
10And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them.
11Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of the sanctuary was cast down.
12And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered.
13Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?
14And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.
15And it came to pass, when I, even I Daniel, had seen the vision, and sought for the meaning, then, behold, there stood before me as the appearance of a man.
16And I heard a man's voice between the banks of Ulai, which called, and said, Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision. start interpation
17So he came near where I stood: and when he came, I was afraid, and fell upon my face: but he said unto me, Understand, O son of man: for at the time of the end shall be the vision.
18Now as he was speaking with me, I was in a deep sleep on my face toward the ground: but he touched me, and set me upright.
19And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation: for at the time appointed the end shall be.
20The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia.
21And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: andthe great horn that is between his eyes is the first king.
22Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power.
23And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.
24And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people.
25And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.
26And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days.
27And I Daniel fainted, and was sick certain days; afterward I rose up, and did the king's business; and I was astonished at the vision, but none understood it.